Can speak at the time of firm entrepreneurial

In a historical perspective, the followers of Adam Smith considered that the company belonged to the "owner". In the 18th century, most of the companies, small, were of type "heritage", that is, the contractor was at the same time a shareholder. Can speak at the time of firm "entrepreneurial". In the 19th century, Karl Marx formulated the idea that the company would belong to the community, the means of production being treated as a "public good". The Soviet Union, after 1920, has implemented this theory in two forms: the "sovkhoz", held by the State, and "kolkhozes", owned by the employees. This last formula is analogous to the principle of "mutuality", developed by various socialist currents who considered that the shareholders should be "mutualist" employees

In the United States, CA. 1930, Berle and Means economists identify for the first time two different partners: "shareholders" and "managers", the first entrusting to the latter the care management companies on their behalf. This approach was detailed by Mr. Jensen in the 1970s, under the name of "agency theory" (or "warrant"): in this scheme, the shareholders are the unique owners of the business, leaders being that agents and employees being recruited to actually accomplish the object of the company.

It can be seen that this "neoliberal" approach has clearly triumphed, late 20th century. The USSR collapsed, in large part, due to disturbances of its economy (due, among other things, to the inadequacy of the model "sovkhoz" in globalization). At the same time, a wave of privatization generalized and extended also to the emerging countries covered a large part of public capital companies, whose profitability was considered too low. With regard to "mutualist" companies, they continue to exist in Western countries, while the "kolkhoz" Soviet for the most part disappeared. However this mutuality remains limited in some areas (Bank, insurance, a bit of industry); In addition, mutual status, which restricts the detention of shares to employees of the company, often impedes the growth of the company, trying to develop sometimes vehicles rated to be able to raise additional capital. Should we conclude that in the early 21st century, it is the neo-liberal model that triumphed in a universal manner In fact, things are not so simple.

On the one hand, the deep ownership trends, namely, predominance of institutional investors, emergence of the "hedge funds" that emphasize performance in the short term, make appear harmful behaviours for the economy as a whole: strengthening stock market volatility, increase in relocations, social consequences, sometimes poorly projected. This rapid evolution causes sometimes vivid reactions, under the banner proclaimed the "economic patriotism".

On the other hand, the tertiarisation of the economy and business in general increases the importance of innovation and expertise in the development of a business. It is a concept which can be summarized under the name of "intangible capital"; It is essentially based on the various stakeholders of the company: employees, customers, creditors, shareholders, suppliers and civil society. These natural partners broadens, so the vision that one can have of the company. If shareholders are the "legal" owners of the company, it remains no less true that employees, including Executive (including directors), contribute significantly to the success of the enterprise project and can, from a point of view "economic", be considered as "co-owners" of the company. There the starting (or inward) of a Director-General, the recruitment of high-performing teams contribute greatly to the value of the company (and, if the company is listed on the "market" value).

How to reconcile these various background trends A road is to redefine a more appropriate ownership structure fostering a round table where individual shareholders are more present (cf. model Air Liquide), where employee ownership helps to stabilize the social relations (cf. the model Air France-KLM) and improves the motivation of the employees. A second route involves leaders take more into account the evolution of intangible capital for their business, a source of future enhancement of the company, with a dashboard, followed in real time and entrusted to a head at high level. It must also communicate, within and outside of the company, on the subject. Finally, the concerns of sustainable development require the company to plan for a more distant future. All of these initiatives give more visibility in terms of business, which can only appeal to current and future shareholders.