Contractualization revisited by CSR
The 2008 food crises sparked renewed interest in food security and poverty reduction issues in West Africa. In response to these challenges, governments and international organizations (including private foundations) are promoting partnerships between stakeholders (producers, agro-industrialists, banks, traders, etc.), particularly within the framework of "contract farming." The latter is defined as an agreement (oral or written) between producers and other businesses, specifying one or more conditions for the production and/or marketing of agricultural products. The argument developed by the promoters of this model emphasizes that contractualization not only improves agricultural productivity, ensures coordination within sectors, and also supports rural development. This model is also based on the premise of convergence between the interests of investors and those of stakeholders. For example, industrialists and the Senegalese government praise the merits of the "win-win" model of coexistence between agro-industries and the local community. The former would contribute to the objectives of agricultural policy (notably the achievement of self-sufficiency in rice in a context of food insecurity) and to the improvement of life in rural areas. In exchange, the latter would facilitate the conditions of access to land while securing investments. Therefore, contractualization is part of a utilitarian vision of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
CSR to understand business and society relations
The notion of CSR reflects the evolution of paradigms on the role of firms within societies. Thus, the work of Capron (2009)[1] show how we have moved from the economic responsibility of the company to shareholders alone, to the societal responsibility of the company to society as a whole. However, the universal definitions of CSR (European Commission, 2001; NF ISO 26000, 2010) are controversial and do not have a consensus. This is why, in analyzing CSR, it is necessary to deconstruct the meaning and instrumentation of the concept according to the actors involved. Two major visions of CSR are opposed: (i) that which is "independent" of the company's activity and which is linked to the philanthropic conception of CSR[2] ; and (ii) that which directly affects the activity and core business of the company and which refers to the strategic or utilitarian conception of CSR[3]The philanthropic conception of CSR dominates in many countries, particularly in the United States. Its objective is to support projects of general interest, but on the condition that profits have first been made. This conception can be summarized by the following formula: "profit first, philanthropy second" (Capron and Quairel-Lanoizelée, 2016).[4]On the other hand, the strategic conception of CSR is based on the postulate of the existence of a positive link between the integration of stakeholders' expectations and the economic performance of the entity in question (Porter and Kramer, 2011)[5]. In this perspective, proactive business groups that promote CSR (CSR Europe, RSE Senegal, etc.) present economic arguments (risk reduction, access to resources, etc.) to encourage companies to adopt socially responsible strategies. However, the relationship between social performance and economic performance is not always positive, as many managers declare that it is possible to do "social" only when the financial results are good. We can then wonder whether the arguments in favor of CSR that are based on strategic utilitarianism do not contribute to favoring an elite of competitive companies.
Furthermore, Capron and Quairel-Lanoizelée (2016) distinguish a diversity of CSR practices ranging from one-off or symbolic actions aimed at gaining acceptance for the company's behavior, without changing its foundations, to substantial strategies intended to effectively align the objectives and methods of companies with the expectations and concerns of stakeholders. The latter require a stronger commitment from management to corporate responsibility, an analysis of the sustainability of the business model, and dialogue with stakeholders.
Challenges of the conceptual rapprochement between CSR and contractualization
Agricultural sectors face particularly significant CSR challenges. Indeed, production maintains specific links to land use and involves a natural resource management strategy, which raises socioeconomic and environmental issues. At the same time, foodstuffs are incorporated (in the etymological sense, they are introduced into the body), which raises issues of public health and cultural identity, among others.
It should be noted that some business initiatives, such as contracts, can be the expression of power relations between partner actors, which do not always lead to win-win situations. Therefore, the territorial integration of contractualization comes up against the political contestation of the process of transferring land from farmers to agricultural entrepreneurs. The study carried out by Bourgoin et al. (2016)[6] demonstrates that the dynamics of large-scale land acquisition by agro-industries increase pressure on resources (water and land) and can generate conflicts between local populations, whether or not they benefit from these investments, as happened during the installation of the Senhuile company in the Senegal River valley. Consequently, many peasant organizations and NGOs take a very critical stance towards agro-industries, which they accuse of being responsible for a process of land grabbing (ENDA Pronat, 2015)[7]This critical stance towards commercial agriculture, which is generally associated with foreign investment, land grabbing and a type of agribusiness (one that owns large areas of land), does not always reflect the reality of agricultural contracts. It should be noted that contracting, in theory, should not be associated with land appropriation. On the contrary, contracting companies should "limit themselves" to purchasing the production of local farmers. In reality, we observe a mixture of "pure" contracting and appropriation or even land grabbing, because companies that sign contracts with farmers generally also want to invest in production.
Furthermore, recent data show that the dynamics of contracting are also driven by national entrepreneurs, described as modern or emerging farmers, who have varied profiles. Taking into account the nature of entrepreneurs and the appropriation of contracts by the different stakeholders could fuel the current debate on the conditions that must be met to ensure that the participation of family farmers in contracts is truly beneficial to them.
[1] Capron M, 2009. Corporate Social Responsibility, Les Editions des Récollets – The Encyclopedia of Sustainable Development. No. 99. 5 pages.
[2] This is an example of a bank that finances projects for access to education, but in return, to create a favorable image or a better reputation.
[3] This is the case of a company that decides to modify its supply chain, by choosing suppliers who respect CSR standards.
[4] Capron M. & Quairel-Lanoizelée, F. 2016. Corporate Social Responsibility, Paris: La Découverte.
[5] Porter ME and Kramer MR 2011. Creating shared value: how to reinvent capitalism – and unleash a wave of innovation and growth, Harvard Business Review, vol. 89, no. 1, p. 63-77.
[6] Bourgoin J, Diop D, Dia D. 2016. Reality and challenges of massive land acquisition by agro-industry in Senegal. Focus on the Senegal River Delta and Lake Guiers area. ISRA-BAME policy notes, No. 6. Pages 1-6.
[7] ENDA Pronat, 2015. …And if we listened to the land for sustainable rural development. ENDA Pronat, Report 158 pages.
