|
The Impact of Social Partnership on the Environment
Mariem Kchaich Ep Chedli
PhD student, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania,
mariemkchaiech@gmail.com
Abstract. The multidimensional social problems that everyone attempt to remedy are very complex and no actor can face them on his own. So the different parties have to work together in order to create partnerships.
The State has long been the main actor in the control and regulation of social relations. However, in recent years there has been a rapid decline in their role given the enormous charge and lack of resources. Hence the need for the intervention of other parties.
Some review of literature explores the conceptualization of social partnership in order to meet the needs of the organization or solve organizational problems. More and more large companies and multinationals began voluntary approach of social responsibility items and to move closer to certain social enterprises by concluding partnership agreements.
The purpose of this study was to analyze the social transformation that follows the creation of a relation of a social partnership between a social enterprise and a company that has involved a strategy of social responsibility. Then, we will present the environment to finally study the impact of social partnership on the environment; on economic, cultural and political dimensions.
Keywords: Social partnership, social transformation, social enterprise, environment, impact.
JEL Codes: Q51
1. Introduction
"The economic crisis, whose we have been talking about for in recent years, represent more than a crisis in public finances, more than a crisis in the management of the public service, more than an economic crisis. It’s about a societal crisis which brigs into question the very foundations which the organization had been based on, for several decades" (Favreau and Lévesque, 1997).
Multi-dimensional social problems, where no party can solve them alone, lead to the need for collaboration between enterprises and social enterprises (Sakarya and al., 2012). According to Sagawa and Segal (2000), both social enterprises and enterprises that have a profit goal,are tackling the most resilient social challenges (Wilson and al, 2010).
Social partnership is a relatively new concept that has been adopted by public management practices in developing countries (Charles-Soverall and Khan, 2004). It improves the potential to have a positive effect on the process of solving social problems, develops long-term projects and allows the change of perspectives. It also engenders social transformations that have political, economic and cultural impacts on society.
In a first section, we discuss the social transformation of a partnership relation between a social enterprise and a company that has involved social and environmental responsibility.
In the second section, we analyze the environment, as well as the issues and the theoretical models capable of developing it.
In the last section, we treat the impact of social partnership on the political, economic dimensions and on environmental policies.
2. The social enterprise based on partnership
Company that has involved environmental social responsibility: a process of social transformation.
2.1. Social Transformation:
Social change has occured in response to the social transformations that marked the nineteenth century. This concept was introduced in sociological terminology, in its modern sense, by William F. Ogburn in 1922.
The solution to social problems such as supporting sustainable spending on health, education, economics, political and cultural problems, linked to long-term poverty, often require fundamental transformations in the political, economic and social systems that underpin the current stable states. The success achieved by the creation of Ashoka (1980), of Gramen Bank (1983) is not measured in terms of profit but in terms of social transformation, since these companies have as main objective to eliminate the miseries of the world by profoundly changing the environment.
Social enterprises re-invest most of their profits either in the company itself or in the community. They quickly became a widespread social action aimed at creating perceived positive change in areas such as health, education, environment and regional development (Steyaert and Hjorth, 2006).
The most famous social entrepreneurs, such as Muhammad Yunus, who was awarded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for his creation of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, Victoria Hale who founded One World Health and Jim Fruchterman, a Silicon Valley engineer who created Benetech, have developed solutions to social needs (Dees, 2007). And these solutions create social transformations in all areas. This is why some authors consider social entrepreneurship as a means of catalyzing social transformation by generating solutions to social problems (Alvord and al., 2002). In this perspective, social entrepreneurship in its turn produces small short-term changes that have repercussions through existing systems, leading to significant changes in the long term (Ashoka Foundation, 2000).
2.2. The link between the partnership and social transformation:
In the context of a world where everything goes faster and the requirements are growing, it seems increasingly difficult for an enterprise to operate on its own on the market and to achieve the desired performance (Benfadhel, 2004, Pellicelli, 2003, Knoke and Todeva, 2004).
2.2.1. The importance of partnership for social transformation
The transformations of the international economic environment taking place based on the new strategies (Gagnon and Klein, 1991). In addition, Hoffmann (2007) argues that strategic alliances improve the ability of enterprises to adapt to environmental changes. These alliances are not limited to the for-profit world, because they have also become popular in social sectors such as education and health (Nikolic and Maikisch 2006). The World Bank, for its part, has encouraged alliances as a means to promote the fight against poverty, universal education and other social objectives (World Bank, 1999).
During the last years, the range and scope of partnership issues has expanded (Aspen Institute, 2002) to embrace local, national and global preoccupations (Selsky and Parker, 2005).
According to Gagnon and Klein (1991), "partnership becomes a new way of regulating social relations at the local level and is consequently an important aspect of the regulation of the social and economic system at the global level" It is associated with the territorialization of social action, to the creation of communication networks between organizations, to local identity, to the meeting of public and private strategies and the mobilization of the population and its resources, as social movements (Lalanne, 1989).
Generally, firms are more attracted to the direct impact of partnerships, such as education, health, sustainable development, etc., than to those who have indirect impacts, such as social mobilization or good governance (Ashman, 2001; Hutchinson, 2000).
According to Gagnon and Klein (1991), "most of the works consulted conceive partnership as a fundamental characteristic and an inherent condition of local development.
Thus the notion of partnership takes an increasingly important place on development, and more particularly on regional development.
The notion of partnership regroups a wide variety of experiences and practices. The analysis of the theoretical reflections and of the case studies on the participation of the actors in the realization of programs and projects of development defined locally allows us to distinguish several forms of partnership".
In universities and businesses are added by private, for-profit or non-profit organizations, which can take many forms; Development companies, professional institutions, associations, innovation groups, etc. (Gagnon and Klein, 1991). These organizations whose operating structure differs from one country to another, even from one territory to another, assume regional development (Gagnon and Klein, 1991).
Examples of social partnership:
Corporations founded by private enterprise like the Y Allegheny Conference on Community Development in Pittsburgh, the Michigan Strategy Fund, the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation, supported projects for the social and economic revitalization of urban territories in collaboration with municipalities in their respective cities.
An American example to quote in terms of partnership is the city of Philadelphia, where the 30 largest companies first united to form the Greater Philadelphia First Corporation to participate in local economic development (Gagnon and Klein, 1991). Then, they formed with the local elected representatives “the Greater Philadelphia Economic Development Coalition”, which was largely financed by private enterprise and became the principal place of territorial cooperation in development (Gagnon and Klein, 1991).
The establishment of the organization has set three objectives:
1) Attract new enterprises;
2) Create an enabling environment for new entrepreneurs;
3) Find solutions to social problems affecting the most disadvantaged social groups (Gagnon and Klein, 1991).
According to the analysis by Widener (1989): "The experience seems conclusive: thanks to this organization, the city center of Philadelphia has been restored and new head offices have come to install, innovative industrial sectors have been developed and the quality of life of citizens has been improved".
It is obvious that in the context of the globalization of the economic sphere and the territorialization of the social, the notion of partnership has a new meaning which increasingly imposes itself as one of the social forms of social change. The Partnership has become an important instrument to cope the problems of global development (Kolk and al., 2008).
Alliances are not limited to the for-profit world. They have also become popular in social sectors such as education and health (Nikolic and Maikisch, 2006). This is partly due to the influence of supranational organizations such as the World Bank, which has encouraged alliances to pursue its own goals of poverty eradication, universal education, and other Social objectives (World Bank, 1999).
2.3. Social enterprise and social transformation:
Much of the literature has focused on defining what is meant exactly by social entrepreneurship, social enterprise and the social economy (Mair and Marti, 2006; Martin and Osberg, 2007, Peredo and McLean 2006) and many of them it is focused on three dimensions considered key to social enterprise; the social transformation, the financial the financial autonomy and the innovation (Austin, et al., 2006, Brooks, 2009, Mair and Marti, 2006, Massarsky and Beinhaker, 2002).
The dynamism of the social economy at the beginning was the expression of a very strong class culture, of a collective agreement, a solidarity category in the work and the regions (Favreau and Lévesque 1997). It is considered as a response to social needs and a function of anticipating social demand that concerns all establishments (Favreau and Lévesque, 1997).
Afterwards, it developed into active groups focused on improving living conditions (Favreau and Lévesque, 1997).
Social enterprises are often described in terms of social transformations (Alvord, Brown and Letts, 2004; Martin and Osberg, 2007) as innovative, since they represent new forms of organization and seek new ways to accomplish social change (Brooks, 2009; Mair and Marti, 2006). Conceptually, they have generally been understood as activities of creating social transformations through innovative and creative strategies (Mars, 2009). Since then, it is widely recognized that social enterprises, compared to other companies are established with the main goal is to bring about positive changes in the environment. So virtually all social enterprises seek to create social change or social transformation (Austin and al., 2006; Babos et al., 2007).
Although a number of social enterprises have been established for many years, it is widely recognized that there has been a recent rapid growth in the quantity, the type and the societal impact of social enterprises across the world (Madill and al., 2010).
An example of a social enterprise judged high in social transformation is Street Kids International. This enterprise is a non-profit organization founded in Canada, that focuses on the development and the dissemination of strategies and tools to give children worldwide the choice of suitable way, skills and opportunities of a better lifetime (Madill and al 2010).
It can be said that social enterprises aim creation of a value that would contribute to the satisfaction of social needs and social transformation (Brouard and al., 2010). Hence we formulate the first proposition; Social enterprise is a catalytic for social transformation.
2.4. The relationship between social partnership and social transformation:
In recent years, companies have involved increasingly involved in partnerships relations with social enterprises. Austin (2000) described these partnerships as the 21 st century paradigm collaboration "necessary to solve" the complex challenges that exceed the capacities of a single sector ( Selsky and Parker, 2005, Warner and Sullivan, 2004).
Through social partnerships, the enterprises together face certain challenges such as economic development, education, health, poverty reduction, environmental sustainability... The number of partnerships has increased very rapidly in recent years (Berger and al, 2004, Crane, 2000, Elkington and Fennell, 2000, Klitgaard and Treverton, 2003), both in advanced and developing economies Oliveira and Tandon, 1994).
If anyone is inspired by the works which reveal the presence of a strong correlation between social transformation and social partnership (Defourny and Monzon Campos 1992, Laville 2005), "The social economy” designate to a relatively well defined set, whether companies and organizations that mostly use the legal status of cooperatives, mutual societies or again non-profit organizations. These enterprises and organizations are generally created by relatively dominated actors (popular classes, women, young people, etc.) in partnership with middle-class promoters (for example, community organizers) for social purposes" (Favreau and Lévesque, 1997).
The theme of social partnership and its capacity to solve the problems of poverty and inequality is being increasingly addressed these days. It is not possible here to provide a comprehensive assessment of the impact of social partnership on inequality, poverty and social exclusion. However, we can signalize the main trends during the partnership period (O'Donnell and O'Reardon, 2000).
3. The environment
3.1. Presentation of the environment:
The emergence of environmental policy in French cities took place gradually during the 1970s and 1980s.
The theme of the environment is today at the heart of debates of a social or political nature (Weiss and Girandola, 2010). The word environment is polysemic; it has several different meanings and adapts in several contexts. It can be defined as an important component of the action and experience of the individual. There is not a sector like the others .This is a weakly institutionalized field of action characterized by a representation of uncertain problems, poor integration of actors and a questionable character of the intervention scales (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2007).
The environment is not marked by the presence of well-established rules of the game, very strong routines or modes of action perpetuating itself in time (Béal, 2010).
For this reason, it seems particularly heuristic to update the processes of change in public action (Béal, 2010). "In terms of environmental psychology," place "constitutes a sociophysical unit of analysis: it is an experimental space with an individual and collective dimension, consisting of spatiophysical properties, activities and cognitive and evaluative experiences which refer both to activities and physical properties" (Bonnes and Bonaiuto, 2002) (quoted by Weiss et al., 2006).
3.2. Environmental issues:
In recent decades, technical and technological development, political, economic and social problems have increased the complexity of the environment and environmental issues are now an issue (Béal, 2010; Weiss and al. Al., 2006). Indeed, "every organization is confronted with two categories of problems: maintaining internal cohesion in spite of individual diversity and constant and obligated interaction with the environment" (Soparnot, 2004).
In the space of 20 years, environmental issues have been reformulated very strongly (Béal, 2010). "For a long time subordinated to the needs of economic activity and considered as a set of unlimited resources, the environment appears today as a collective preoccupation" (Boiral, 2004).
At the end of this century, environmental problems are increasingly numerous and complex to solve.Civil society (in which we include the citizen, industrialists and politicians) raises questions, expresses concerns about issues that are expressed both on a global and local scale (Le Dorlot, 2001). The construction of the environmental diagnosis is homogeneous both from the point of view of spatially and temporally (Weiss and al., 2006).
According to Weiss and al; 2006: "The difficulty of explaining behavioural changes is related to the complexity of the interactions between the individual and the environment.
The relationship between attitudes, pro-environmental behaviors and local contexts remains uncertain, and particular situational elements may result in punctual pro-environmental behaviors in a priori recalcitrant individuals. Another difficulty lies in the impossibility of perceiving the state of the environment at an overall level that is generally characterized by uncertainty”.
Awareness of environmental problems is facilitated by the perception of changes and the weight of risks associated with these changes.
3.2.1. Theoretical models related to the environment
There are three major theoretical models that are able to develop the thematic field of the environment: commitment, cognitive dissonance and social representations (Rateau and Weis, 2011).
3.2.2. The commitment
The concept of Submission freely consented, based on the classical work of Freedman and Fraser (1966), allow to understand how individuals may be required to accomplish acts which they consider desirable but which oppose to their behavioral habits (Girandola and al., 2010).
The possibility to perform such an act increases if it is preceded by a preparatory act of lesser cost, easy to accomplish and in relation to the targeted behavior (Rateau and Weis, 2011).
Recently, a new research paradigm called "engaging communication" was proposed by Joule et al. in 2007 (Rateau and Weis, 2011). This paradigm makes it possible to obtain cognitive effects (change of behaviour attitude) and behavioral effects, in particular for the social missions of the environment (Bernard, 2007, Girandola and al., 2010, Joule and al., 2008) (quoted by Rateau and Weis; 2011).
3.2.3. Cognitive dissonance:
"The theory of cognitive dissonance expresses that the presence of at least two psychologically inconsistent cognitions among themselves in the cognitive universe of an individual generates in him a state of psychological discomfort denominated as the state of dissonance. This state will in turn generate a form of motivation to adopt strategies aimed at restoring a certain coherence between cognitions and, consequently, reducing the state of dissonance" (Rateau and Weis, 2011).
3.2.4. Social representations:
A social representation possesses two components, a cognitive component, according to which every social representation is a mental elaboration of an individual who reconstructs the objects of his environment and a social component according to which this reconstruction of the environment is determined by the social conditions in which develops Social representation (Rateau and Weis, 2011).
A social representation allows us to understand and explain reality by integrating it into an assimilable framework that corresponds to our values and our ideas, it allows us to determine our practices, to justify our conducts a posteriori and to define the identity of a group and make it possible to maintain its specificity (Rateau and Weis, 2011).
The first attempts that link the theory of social representations to the field of the environment date from the 1970s .However, according to Bonnes and al (1997); Castro and Lim (2001) and Castro (2003), it is only from years 1990s that a certain number of researchers analyze the social representations of different themes related to the environment, from the conceptualization of the environment as an abstract notion up to representations of environmental problems (Rateau and Weis, 2011).
Several researches conducted in environmental psychology indicate that the theory of social representations applied to the field of environment can enrich the descriptions of environmental problems in a way to obtain better portraits of them (Rateau and Weis, 2011). We consider in particular the interest of the structural approach of social representations (Abric, 1994).
3.3. The transition from a stable environment to sustainable development:
The emergence of the watchword sustainable development, defined as a watchword aimed at reconciling economic growth and environmental protection and to renew modes of action, has provoked a certain number of changes in the way we do in the objectives pursued and who interests us more, particularly here, from the actors considered relevant and legitimate in the treatment of environmental issues in the city (Béal, 2010).
Many models in the study of environmental policies aim to analyze the enterprise's reaction in front of environmental pressures (Pasquero, 1980). However, since the past few years, these issues tend to appear more like a source of economic opportunities than like a constraint that enterprises have to captivate (Comolet 1991, Shrivastava 1995).
Organizations are conceptualized as technologies, social structures, cultures and physical interrelated structures that influence reciprocally in the context of an environment (Zephir, 2009).
4. The impact of social partnership on the dimensions of the environment:
The impact is defined as "significant or lasting modification in people's lives, provoked by a given action or series of actions" (Roche, 1999). It is a logical chain of results in inputs and organizational activities that conduct to a series of outcomes and ultimately to social impact (Sakarya and al, 2012).
Social impacts are the consequences of any public or private action on human populations. They change the way of people live, work, play, relate to one another, and organize themselves to meet their needs as members of society (Brudge and Vanclay 1995). Demographic characteristics, community and institutional structures, political and social resources, individual and family changes, and community resources are suggested as dimensions in which social impact can be measured (Gpsia, 1994).
The social impact assessment variables highlight a measurable change in the human population, the communities and the social relationships resulting from a development or change project (Burdge and al., 1995). Social enterprises tend to be more altruistic (Milne et al., 1996) and to measure the impact by the number of people affected and by the social transformation of cultural, economic and political dimensions (Alvord and al., 2004).
However, the social impact on the cultural, political and economic spheres leads to gradual changes in the system which can gradually lead to changes in the system itself (Sztompka, 1994). As a result, it is almost impossible to catalog all dimensions of social impacts because the change is a way to create other changes (Burdge and al, 1995).
4.1. The political dimension of the environment:
4.1.1. Public policy:
Political science has recently developed general frameworks for an understanding of public policies, identified as "a program of governmental action in a sector of the society or a geographical space" (Meny, 1989).
Public policies are the ensemble of public activities that aim to create a modification, a renewal and transformations of a situation. They constitute a specific level of interpretation of political activity.
4.1.1.1. Social policy:
Social policy consists in the use of political power to supplant, supplement or modify the mechanisms of the economic system in order to achieve the results which the system could not achieve by itself .According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), "Effective social policy helps individuals to live fully and thrive, and in so doing allows economies to better adapt to new opportunities for growth.
On the other hand, a bad social policy is synonymous with aggression or social exclusion, in poverty ".
According to Rosanvallon (2006), there are four main strands of social policy:
- The social redistribution: it is the welfare state whose mission is to ensure the unity of populations;
- The social "capacitation”: These are the tools by which persons have the means to manage their chances (equality of chances, the health, the education, etc.);
- The social regulator, which concerns regulation as well as labour law;
- The social protector, which aims to preserve human dignity development aid is the only truly global public policy with a financial dimension, even if its implementation is, and remains, scattered among many public bilateral actors, multilaterals, or non-governmental ".
It is the result of the Second World War and the decolonization. Its object is development, a concept that was the subject of several competing approaches in the second half of the 20th century (Severino and Jacquet, 2002).
4.2. The political impact:
In the double context of globalization and economic crisis, and because of the growing needs and social problems in the world, developed countries no longer have the capacity or even the necessary legitimacy on the financial markets to take charge independently of the financing of useful infrastructure projects for the development of the community (Angles, 2012) and to provide the necessary funds to fight effectively against social problems.
Advantageously, it is expected that social enterprises will continue to grow as number and importance (Christie and Honig, 2006; Rangan et al., 2008), by providing the necessary tools for the maintenance and development of society. These enterprises have a management autonomy in relation to State, through a production of goods or services, whether merchant, non-market or non-monetary, by rules of the type: Non-profit organism, cooperative, mutual, etc., through values such as service to members or to the collectivity rather than profit, and by taking democratic decision-making, involving users and workers. They goal to meet new needs by new aspirations. Also, they are often supported by new social movements (feminist, ecologist, cultural, regionalist), with strong identities.
Studies of social partnership are emerging from various disciplines such as organization studies, public policy and administration, economics, non-profit management, health care, education and the natural environment (Selsky and Parker, 2005).
Politically, the analysis presented by Yaziji (2009) shows that social partnership facilitates the creation of new legislative and regulatory arrangements (large NGOs often dispose eminent jurists and leading lobbying forces of first plan who can work jointly with those companies that have managed to win the confidence of NGOs) and suggests the development of new standards that are appropriate for different stakeholders (Urban, 2005).
A very clear message emanates from the powerful American Academy of Management, which highlights the advantages of this type of partnership:
- On the competitive plan: sharing of knowledge and expertise, broadening of field of activity, development of common operational procedures, useful implication of other producers and consumers / users, cultural and organizational learning, creation of a favourable common image to others;
- On moral and political levels: development of social relations, limitation of relational risks (relational risk), exchange of information and creating a climate of reciprocal trust between partners, gaining influence in power games (Urban, 2005).
All these factors contribute to the limitation of strategic uncertainty.
"These are, in the end, prospects for material gains, measurable opportunities of the development of intangible assets that are concerned" (Urban, 2005).
Among the famous multinational companies involved in this partnership game we pick up (In the United States) the names of IBM, Pepsi Cola, Chevron, AT & T, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard, Philip Morris, Motorola, Unilever, Kodak, Johnson & Johnson, Ford Motor, Starbucks, American Express, BP Amoco, Cisco Systems, DuPont emblematic names but not isolated cases (Urban, 2005).
Political impact implies policy responses to social structural changes in areas such as population, family, education, labour market, class structures, life-course models (Sakarya and al., 2012), Health, childhood, housing, poverty, exclusion... It also increases the ability of individuals to express their opinions while the economic impact leads to an increase in means and resources for improving individual productivity (Alvord and al., 2004).
In the fields of health and social services, social assistance, unemployment insurance and vocational training, the central problem faced by the public authorities is that of a persistent crisis in employment (Lipietz, 1997). The extent of unemployment, its prolonged duration, its distribution in the social body gradually introduces a "social tear" (Lipietz, 1997).
Faced with this fear, social enterprises, by their finalities, structures and rules, offer new opportunities for job creation and the distribution of services in the communities (Angles, 2012).
An abundant literature on social change and education (as Carnoy and Samoff, 1990) has argued that social transformation is an impulse for, and reflected in, educational change. Many countries, such as Brazil, Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom, have used the right to engage or to realize the educational reform as a response to the preparation for social change.
To conclude on this point, it can be recognized that experience has shown that governments are not able to provide public interests and are also not in a position to obtain development objectives (Salarzehi and al., 2010). While the objective of social partnership is to overcome these obstacles and create social transformations with a political impact that responds to public problems.
It can be said that there is a positive correlation between social partnership and political development, that is, when the number of social partnership relationships increases in a certain environment, the political situation develops and vice-versa.
4.3. The economic dimension of the environment:
4.3.1. Definition of concepts:
Economic development: the United Nations defines economic development as the combined function of economic growth and social change.
Economic growth: "Growth is a fundamental process of contemporary economies, based on the development of factors of production, linked in particular to the industrial revolution, access to new mineral resources (deep mines) and energy (coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, etc.) and technical progress" (Solow, 1957).
The standard definition of economic growth is that there is a sustained increase in per capita income over a sufficiently long period. For example, Ghana and Tanzania experienced a long period of stagnation in the 1980s and 1990s, followed by positive growth in the 2000s. In the case of the Philippines, there were several phases. Growth experienced sustained economic growth in the 1960s and early 1970s, followed by a collapse in growth in the late 1970s, followed by stagnation in the 1980s and the early 1990s, with a resumption of growth in the 2000s.
Thus, growth phases may vary in time and space - the same phase of growth is not characteristic of countries in the same region and in the same period, and countries that are similar in some respects (such as Ghana and Uganda) show very different growth phase commutators (Sen, 2013).
Economic Transformation:
Economic transformation means the creation of employment and business opportunities, but also investment in health, children raising and education. This because improving quality of life, it can force the pace of economic transformation, and create growth and development (African Development Bank, 2013).
4.3.2. Illustrated examples of economic impact:
4.3.2.1. Basic Context
At first, social "escapes" were rather shown difficult and surreptitious; or rather, social advances were supposed to flow naturally from the beneficial effects of economic integration, in a context where the social was supported by states (Cochoy and Goetschy, 2009).
Public enterprises continue to play a crucial role in production, the investment and the employment, while their social and public service missions are still clearly dissociated from their commercial activities. As a result, "too many public enterprises hide their mismanagement behind a past marked by social constraints" (Cru 1999).
4.3.2.2. Limits of Government Policies in Developing Social Entrepreneurship
Nowadays, the experience has shown that governments are not in a position to protect public interests and are not in a position to achieve development goals (Salarzai and al., 2010).
They obviously need to get their best using the capabilities of the commercial sector in the production of goods and services that indeed has fostered the spread of economic development in developed countries and fields of economic prosperity, employment and well- Being of citizens (Salarzehi et al., 2010). On the one hand, the public authorities, on their own, hesitate in the conduct of economic policy and can no longer manage the synchronization between the pace of economic reform and that of social transformation.
On the other hand, social entrepreneurs have as objective the creation of social transformations (Thompson and al., 2000; Dees, 2001; Alvord and al., 2004).
The need for a partnership between social enterprises and other enterprises (commercial, public, etc.) to share the mission is indisputable.
The genesis of the first chord of social partnership of 1987 began when the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, Charles Haughey, brought together representatives of the business community and trade unions trying to solve the economic crisis (Adshesd, 2006). Despite their differences, government, trade unions and business leaders were linked together by a shared consensus on the need to tackle the economic crisis (Adshesd, 2006).
Social partnership, even if it comes in a variety of forms and degrees, it relies on a definitive strategy founded on the idea that labor and capital share a common and fundamental interest in the success of the national economy as a whole (Mandel, 2003). Indeed, "partnership relations with social enterprises make it possible to better predict and anticipate the evolution of global demand, according to trends in social demand (emergence of the solidarity economy, of responsible consumption, of trade Equitable)" (Urban, 2005). Moreover, these relationships make it possible to implement a less risky innovation policy (Urban, 2005).
4.3.2.3. The Economic Impact
The economic impact is defined as the net variation that occurs in an economy, as result of a particular event or activity on its social partners. It leads to an increase in means and resources for the improvement of individual productivity (Alvord et al., 2004). Major concerns in the study of economic impact include effects on employment, financial and physical capital, services and government revenues, output, income / wages and growth (Hughes, 2003).
The role of the economy in social transformation is still very modest. On the contrary, social transformation will create the conditions for economic mutation (Cru, 1999). C. Gide assigns to organizations that it ranks under the label "social economy", a veritable role of social transformation (Alvord and al., 2004).
Empirical research has demonstrated the effectiveness of social norms in changing the behaviour of individuals regarding the natural environment (Cialdini, 2003; Ostrom, 2000) and economic actions (Young, 1998).
Economic impact analysis is useful for estimating the effects of a change in economic activity in a region (Dalton, 2004).
From this model emerges a recommendation of the economic policy that say that in order to help a country to overcome economic challenges and thus accelerate the economic growth, it is not simply a question of providing financial aid, but to provide for measures which will accelerate social integration and social harmonization in order to optimize the efficient use of national resources (Boakye, 2012).
"Today, the fair trade and the social economy announce a new generation of social and economic movements. This movement proposes to integrate into the exchange a social significance and an educational dimension (Gendron, 2001). In theory, the movement of fair trade poses in a fundamental paradigmatic renewal of the economic act. On the empirical level, this movement instrumentalises the economy for political and social purposes "(Gendron, 2001).
For example, children care centers create alliances between social movements aimed on social transformation and improved working conditions (Bellemare and al., 2006).
The growth and the economic development will impact on the cultural values of a nation. There is no doubt that economic growth leads to cultural change.
It can be noted from the foregoing that there is a positive correlation between social partnership and economic development thus when the number of social partnership relationship increases in an environment the economic situation develops and vice versa.
4.4. The cultural dimension of the environment:
4.4.1. Definition of culture:
The word culture has evolved over the years. There are several definitions that reflect different theories and cover a host of different concepts.
According to the sociologist Rocher (1969), the culture is "a connected set of more or less formalized ways of thinking, feeling and acting which, being learned and shared by a plurality of people, serve, in a way at the same time objective and symbolic, to constitute these persons in a particular and distinct collectivity".
The notion of culture can also be defined as a set of facts of civilization (art, knowledge, customs, beliefs, laws, morals, techniques, etc.) by which a group (society, community, particular social group) think, act and feel its relationship with nature, men and the absolute.
4.4.2. Cultural impact:
What has been painfully born for two centuries and more is the project of a new society, the project of autonomy and social independence (Castoriadis, 1979). It is impossible to speak of social transformation without confronting the question of culture in this sense (Castoriadis, 1979). So there is an intimate connection between cultural creation and the social and political problems of our time. The question of "culture" is sometimes considered as a dimension of the political problem; and it may equally well be said that the political problem is a component of the question of culture in the broadest sense (Castoriadis, 1979).
Cultural impact implies changes in the norms, values and beliefs of individuals, who guide and rationalize their knowledge and society (Brudge and Vanclay, 1995). There are several implications arising from this shift in popular opinion for all major development activities that generate multiple social impacts in the Third World (Brudge and Vanclay, 1995).
Measuring cultural impact implies an estimation of social and individual values. There is no model for clarification on cultural impact assessment, but there are indirect models imported from various disciplines and contexts (Asensio, 2006).
From the point of view of Head (2010), an effective and peaceful cultural transformation is possible if all parties work in partnership. According to Castoriadis (1979), "there will be a social transformation and an autonomous society only in and through a new historical consciousness, which implies both a restoration of the value of tradition and another attitude towards it Tradition, another articulation between it and the tasks of the present / future. And the national level remains the essential place of manufacture of rules in social matters".
There is a positive correlation between social partnership and cultural development. Therefore, when the number of social partnership relationships increases in an environment, the cultural situation develops and vice versa.
5. Conclusion
Social transformation is the result of social partnership. On the one hand there is a link between social transformation and social enterprise and on the other, there is a link between social transformation and partnership.
It has become obvious that companies become socially responsible by creating a relationship of partnership with social enterprises to respond to social problems and, subsequently, to develop their community.
It was also noted that social partnership has considerable implications. It engenders favourable transformations in the cultural, political and economic spheres of the environment (Alvord et al., 2004).
6. References
[2] Adshead, M., . New Modes of Governance and the Irish Case: Finding Evidence for explanations of social partnership. Economic and Social Review, 2006.
[3] Alvord, S., Brown, L., Letts, C., Social Entrepreneurship and Social Transformation: An Exploratory Study. Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations Working Paper, 2002, No. 15.
[4] Alvord, S., Brown, L., Letts, C., Social Entrepreneurship and Social Transformation: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2004; 40; 260.
[5] Angels,B. Les partenariats public-privée : l’avenir du financement des infrastructures. Revue de l’économie financière, 2012, pp.221-228.
[6] Asensio. Asensio, M.2006 Understand to learn, learn to be conscious, be conscious to enhance, and enhance to preserve our heritage. Accessibility Project Sustainable Preservation and Enhancement of Urban Suboil Archeologocial Remains Position Paper, 2006.
[7] Ashman, D . Civil society collaboration with business: Bringing empowerment back in. World Development.2001, 29.1097-1113.
[8] Austin,JE .The collaboration challenge :How nonprofit and business succeed through strategic alliances .1st.ed . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
[9] Austin,JE., Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship : Same, Different, or Both ? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30, 2006.
[10] Babos, P., Clarence E., Noya, A. Reviewing OECD experience in the social enterprise sector. OECD LEED Centre for Local Development international seminar held in conjunction with the Third DECIM Roundtable, Trento, Italy, 2007.
[11] Barraqué, B. Theys, J. Les Politiques d'environnement. Evaluation de la première génération: 1971-1995, Paris: Editions Recherches,1998, 339.504 4 .
[12] Béal, V. Gouverner l’environnement dans les villes européennes: des configurations d’acteurs restructurées pour la production des politiques urbaines. Sociologie du travail, 2010, 52, 538-560.
[13] Benfadhel. La culture d’entreprise : facteurs de réussite des alliances stratégiques et fusions » colloque portant sur « le management face à l’environnement socioculturel » Liban,2004, 28 ,29 .
[14] Berger, A., Hasan, I.,Klapper,L. Further Evidence on the Link between Finance and Growth: An International Analysis of Community Banking and Economic Performance. Journal of Financial Services Research.2004, 25(2)169-202.
[15] Bernard, F. Quatre approaches pour l’analyse de données textuelles : lexicale, linguistique, cognitive, thématique. AIMS, 2007.
[16] Boakye,S. Theory of social transformation, political transition and economic growth. Economic Systems, 2012, 36.411-425.
[17] Boial, O.,Kabongo, J. “Le management des saviors au service de l’écologie industrielle”,Revue Française de Gestion.2004, 173-191.
[18] Bonnes, M. Bonaiuto,M. Environmental psychology : From spatial-physicalenvironment to sustainable development.Handbook of environmental psychology.2002,28-54.
[19] Bonnes,M. Bonaiuto,M., Metastasio, R., Aiello, A., Sensales, G. Environmental discourse and ecological responsibility in media communication. Handbook of environmental psychology.1997, 28-54.
[20] Brooks,A. Social entrepreneurship: A modern approach to social value creation.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall, 2009.
[21] Brouard, F., Tessa, H., Madill,J. Canadian Social Enterprises: An empirical Exploration of Social Transformation, Financial Self-Sufficiency, and Innovation. Journal of Nonprofit& Public Sector Marketing, 2010, 22: 135-151.
[22] Brudge, J., Vanclay, F. Social impact assessement: A contribution to the state of art series. Impact Assessment, 1995, 14(1), 59-86.
[23] Carnoy,M., Samoff, J. Education and Social Transition in the Third World. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1990.
[24] Castoriadis, C. Transformation sociale et création culturelle. Volume 11, numéro 1, avril 1979, p.33-48.
[25] Castro,P.Pensar anatureza e o ambiente-alguns contributos a partir de Teoria da Representac oes Sociais.Estudos de Psicologia 8(2),2003,263-271.
[26] Castro,P., Lima,M.L. Old and new ideas about the environment and science. Environ.Behav.2001, 33(3), 400-423.
[27] Charles-Soverall,W and Khan,J. Social partnership: new public management practice in Barbados.AJPAM Vol XV,No.1,2004.
[28] Christie,M., Honig,B. Social entrepreneurship: New research findings. Journal of World Business, 2006, vol.41, no.1, pp. 1-5.
[29] Cialdini, B. Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the Environoment. Current Directions in Psychological Science.2003, 12. 105-109.
[30] Cochoy, F., Goetschy, J. L’Europe sociale : créativité institutionnelle communautaire et réalités nationals. Social Europe : EU institutional creativity and national realities.2009, 51.447-460.
[31] Comolet. L’environnement au risque d’une définition .l’information géographique, 1991.55.109-116.
[32] Crane,A . Culture clash and mediation. Terms for endearment, 2000, 163-177.
[33] Cytru, PJ. Le rôle de l’économie dans la transformation sociale. Pouvoirs n°90.1999, p.139-149.
[34] Dalton,T.M. An approach for integrating economic impact analysis into the evaluation of potential marine protected area sites. Journal of Environmental Management, 2004, 70(4), 333-349.
[35] Dees,J.The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship.2010.
[36] Dees, J.G. Taking social entrepreneurship seriously, Social Science and Modern Society. 2007,44.24-31.
[37] Defourny, J.,Monzon, M. Economie sociale. Entre économie capitaliste et économie publique. Centre International de Recherches et d’Information sur l’Economie Publique,Sociale et Coopérative,1992.
[38] Elkington., Fennell. View of Environmental Reporting.Long Range Planing.30.699.
[39] Favreau.Lévesque.,1997. Développement économique et communautaire. Economie sociale et intervention.2000, 41.465-467.
[40] Freedman,J.L.,Fraser,S.C. Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique.J.Pers.Social.Psychology.4,1966,195-202.
[41] Gagnon, C.,Klein, JL.Le partenariat : vers une planification flexible du développement local? Université du Québec à Montréal, 1991.
[42] Gendron , C. Développement durable et économie sociale : convergences et articulations. Les cahiers de la CRSDD collection recherche, 2001.
[43] Girandola, F.,Bernard,F., Joule, R.V. Développement durable et changement de comportement : applications de la communication engageante . Psycholigie et développement durable. In Press Editions, Paris.2010, 221-246.
[44] GPSIA . The interorganizational committee on guidelines and principales for social impact assessment, 1994.
[45] Hoffmann,V. EU ETS and Investment Decisions: The Case of the German Electricity Industry. European Management Journal.2007.25.464-474.
[46] Hutchinson, M.NGO engagement with the private sector on a global agenda to end poverty: A review of the issues. Background paper, Canadian Council for International Cooperation Policy Team. 2000.
[47] Joule, R.V., Bernard, F., Halimi-Farkowitz, S. Promoting ecocitizenship: in favor of binding communication. Journal of Altern. Energy Ecology. 2008,6 (62), 214–218.
[48] Klitgaard, R.,Treverton, G. F. Assessing partnerships: New forms of collaboration.Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government: New Ways to Manage Series.2003.
[49] Knoke,D; Todeva, E.Strategic alliances and models of collaboration. Management Decision. 2004,43.
[50] Kolk, A., Levy, D., Pinkse, J. Corporate Responses in an Emerging Climate Regime: The Institutionalization and Commensuration of Carbon Disclosure. European Accounting Review. 2008, 17.719–745.
[51] Lalanne, L . Les champs socio-institutionnels et les orientations de politique sociale dans lesquelles se développent les actions collectives. Actions collectives et travail social. Paris, Editions ESF.1988, 9-24.
[52] Lascoumes, P. ; Le Gales,P. Sociologie de l’action publique, Paris, Armand Colin, 2007,127.
[53] Laville, J.-L. Economie solidaire in Laville & D. Cattani, eds Dictionnaire de l'autre économie, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 2005, 564 pages.
[54] Lipietz, A. Économie sociale et innovation sociale, 1996.
[55] Madill,J ;Brouard,F; Hebb,T. Canadian Social Enterprises: An Empirical Exploration of Social Transformation, Financial Self-Sufficiency, and Innovation. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing.2010, 135–151.
[56] Mair, J., Marti, I. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business 41.2006, 36–44.
[57] Mars, M. Student Entrepreneurs as Agents of Organizational Change and Social Transformation: a Grassroots Leadership Perspective. Journal of Change Management, 2009.
[58] Martin, R., Osberg, S. Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2007.
[59] Massarsky, C. W., Beinhecker, S. L. Enterprising nonprofits: Revenue generation in the nonprofit sector. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Management, 2002.
[60] Milne, G. R., Iyer, E. S.,Gooding-Williams, S. Environmental organization alliance relationships within and across nonprofit, business, and government sectors. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 1996, 15. 203-215.
[61] Nikolic, I. Maikisch, M. Public-Private Partnerships and Collaboration in the Health Sector. World Bank Discussion Paper, 2006.
[62] O'Donnell, R., O’Reardon, C. From Social Pacts in Europe.New Dynamics of Social Entrepreneurship, 2000, 1. 32-53.
[63] Oliveria, M. D., Tandon, R. Citizens: Strengthening global civil society. Washington, DC: CIVICUS, 1994.
[64] Ostrom, E. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. The journal of economic perspectives.2000, 14.137-158.
[65] Pasquero J. L’entreprise face aux pressions socio-politiques de son environnement. document de travail n° 80-100, IAE-IEC Grenoble,1980.
[66] Pellicelli, 2003 Pellicelli, A. C. Strategic alliances. Clusters and global value chains in the North and the third world, 2003.
[67] Peredo, A., McLean, M. Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review of the Concept. Journal of World Business .2006, 41.56-65.
[68] Rangan, V. K., Leonard, H. B., & McDonald, S. The future of social enterprise .Harvard Business School Working Paper.2008, 08.103.
[69] Rateaua, P, Weiss.k. Psychologie sociale appliquée à l’environnement. Pratiques Psychologiques Volume 17, Issue 3, September 2011, Pages 213–218.
[70] Roche, C. Impact assessment for development agencies: Learning to value change. Oxford: Oxfam, 1999.
[71] Sagawa, S., Segal, E.Common Interest, Common Good: Creating Value through Business and Social Sector Partnerships. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000.
[72] Sakarya, S., Bodur, M., Goksen, N., Oktem,O. Social alliances: Business and social enterprise collaboration for social transformation. Journal of Business Research, 2012, 65.1710–1720.
[73] Salarzehi, H., Armesh, H., Nikbin, D. Waqf as a Social Entrepreneurship Model in Islam. International Journal of Business and Management.2010, 5.
[74] Selsky, P., Parker, B. Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Social .Issues: Challenges to Theory and Practice. Journal of Management.2005, 31 No. 849-873.
[75] Severino, J., Jacquet, P. L’aide au développement : une politique publique au coeur du développement durable et de la gouvernance de la mondialisation. Revue d’économie financière, 2002.
[76] Shrivastava, P. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review 20 .1995, 936–960.
[77] Solow, R. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 70, 1957, 65–94.
[78] Soparnot ,R. A quoi correspondent les capacités de changement des organisations. 13ème conférence de l’association de management stratégique, Le Havre, 2004.
[79] Sztompka, P. The Sociology of Social Change. International Journal of Social Economics.1994, 33.361 – 375.
[80] Thompson, J., Doherty, B. The diverse world of social enterprise: A collection of social enterprise stories International Journal of Social Economics, 2006.
[81] Urban, S. Développement durable et partenariat industriel : vers un modèle stratégique renouvelé. Finance Contrôle Stratégie, 2005, 8. 177 – 200.
[82] Warner, M., Sullivan, R. Putting Partnerships to Work .Strategic Alliances for Development between Government, the Private Sector and Civil Society.2004, 336 .
[83] Weiss, K. Girandola, F. Psychologie et développement durable, Paris, In Press, 2010.
[84] Weiss, K., Colbeau-Justin, L., Marchand, D. Entre connaissance, mémoire et oublis : représentations de l’environnement et réactions face à une catastrophe naturelle. Psychologie sociale de l’environnement. Presses Universitaires de Rennes.2006, 145–157.
[85] Wilson E.J; Bunn .M.D .Savage, G.T.Anatomy of a social partnership: A stakeholder perspective. Industrial Marketing Management 39.2010, 76–90 .
[86] Young, D. Social Enterprise in the United States: Alternate Identities and Forms. Case Western Reserve University, 1998.
[87] Zephir, O. Elaboration d’une méthode d’évaluation des impacts potentiels en phase amont d’un projet de changement technico-organisationnel : application à la maintenance des moteurs d’hélicoptères. Thèse de Doctorat de l’Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy, 2009.