Inclusive Territories 1 E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 320

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

Inequalities and other "social fractures" mark our contemporary economies and societies. While global approaches may have long been sufficient in the past, the focus today is on how local dynamics can make inclusion possible. This two-volume collective work reports on these local dynamics, shedding light on how the creation of inclusive territories can be envisaged and developed. To this end, the involvement of public, private and associative organizations has been identified as one of the conditions for success. In fact, they act both as partners in a territory and as inclusive spaces. Inclusive Territories 1 examines the approaches implemented by several organizations that have made inclusion their wider objective.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright Page

Introduction: Inclusion in a Territory, Political and Social Issues, Issues for Enterprises

PART 1: Entrepreneurial Dynamics that Promote Inclusion Within a Territory

1 Inclusive Territory: An Ongoing Conceptualization

1.1. From economic territory to inclusive territory

1.2. From exclusion to inclusion

1.3. Conclusion

1.4. References

2 The Employer Group and its Stakeholders: Application for a Timeshare HR Manager Job

2.1. The employer group and its stakeholders: A network at the service of a territorialized HRM

2.2. The employer group and its stakeholders: Cross-references on the conditions for success

2.3. Conclusion

2.4. Appendix

2.5. References

3 Contributions of a Science and Technology Park (STP) to Inclusive Mobility for a Territory

3.1. Main contributions of the literature

3.2. Description of the Transalley case and its three embedded sub-cases

3.3. Elements for characterizing the contributions of the STP

3.4. From a smart territory to an inclusive territory

3.5. Conclusion

3.6. References

4 Understanding the Development of Social Enterprise in South Korea

4.1. The concept of a social enterprise: A dual theoretical and geographical basis

4.2. Methodology of the study

4.3. A typology of the main forms of social enterprises observed in South Korea

4.4. Discussion: Understanding Korean social enterprise in the light of the EMES ideal type

4.5. Conclusion

4.6. References

PART 2: Social Innovations by Inclusive Companies Within a Territory

5 Managing Inclusion and Diversity in Organizations: A Strategic Approach to Human Capital

5.1. An overview of the most current literature

5.2. From research to practice

5.3. A case study

5.4. Conclusion

5.5. References

6 A Solidarity Economy Group Implementing Inclusive Recruitment Within a Territory

6.1. Vita Air, a recruitment method for inclusion

6.2. ISA Groupe: Its organization and its culture in favor of inclusion

6.3. ISA Groupe, from a reactive to a proactive inclusive approach

6.4. The process by which ISA Groupe implemented the Vita Air method: A long, gradual and consensual process

6.5. Conclusion

6.6. References

7 The Role of Social Economy Entrepreneurs in Governing Inclusive Social Innovation Ecosystems: The Cause of Mobility for Vulnerable People in Lorraine

7.1. Conceptual framework

7.2. The case of the mobility of vulnerable people in Lorraine

7.3. Conclusion

7.4. References

8 Emergence and Diffusion of Diversity Management in Companies Linking a Territory: The Case of the Hérault Region in France

8.1. The emergence and diffusion of diversity management between isomorphism and institutional entrepreneurship

8.2. Methodological design of the action research

8.3. Results, analysis and discussion

8.4. Conclusion

8.5. References

Conclusion: Acting for the Enterprise, a Major Societal Challenge in a Context of Worsening Inequalities and Poverty

References

List of Authors

Index

Other titles from ISTE in Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Management

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 1

Table 1.1. The two collection phases of the thematic content analysis

Chapter 2

Table 2.1. The diversity of representations of the success criterion

Table 2.2. Quantitative assessment of success

Table 2.3. Difficult-to-identify success criteria

Table 2.4. Full-time integration of a timeshare HR manager

Table 2.5. The profile of the timeshare HR manager

Table 2.6. Profiles of EGs

Table 2.7. Profiles of the leaders

Table 2.8. Profiles of the territories

Table 2.9. Trust between the parties

Table 2.10. A necessary convergence in the parties’ interests

Table 2.11. Sense of belonging

Table 2.12. List of interviewees

Table 2.13. Themes addressed

Chapter 3

Table 3.1. Characteristics of the three embedded projects

Table 3.2. Contributions of the STP according to its orientations

Chapter 4

Table 4.1. Main forms of social enterprises in Korea

Table 4.2. Forms of social enterprises and criteria of the EMES ideal type

Chapter 7

Table 7.1. Major changes in the structure of the social innovation

Chapter 8

Table 8.1. List of organizations interviewed

Table 8.2. Determinants of diversity management in the Hérault

List of Illustrations

Chapter 6

Figure 6.1. Overview of the four phases of workstation diagnosis

Chapter 7

Figure 7.1. Development of social innovation according to Lethielleux and Patu...

Figure 7.2. Representation of the Omnibus business process

Guide

Cover Page

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright Page

Introduction

Begin Reading

Conclusion

List of Authors

Index

Other titles from ISTE in Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Management

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

Pages

iii

iv

ix

x

xi

xii

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

Territorial Entrepreneurship and Innovation Set

coordinated by

Didier Chabaud, Florent Pratlong and Carlos Moreno

Volume 1

Inclusive Territories 1

Role of Enterprises and Organizations

Edited by

Martine BrasseurAnnie BartoliDidier ChabaudPascal GrouiezGilles Rouet

First published 2023 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:

ISTE Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUKwww.iste.co.uk

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USAwww.wiley.com

© ISTE Ltd 2023The rights of Martine Brasseur, Annie Bartoli, Didier Chabaud, Pascal Grouiez and Gilles Rouet to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2023942764

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryISBN 978-1-78630-855-9

IntroductionInclusion in a Territory, Political and Social Issues, Issues for Enterprises

This book is the first in a new set of books launched by ISTE Ltd in partnership with the chair “Entrepreneurship, Territory and Innovation” (ETI) at the IAE Paris Sorbonne Business School directed by Didier Chabaud, Carlos Moreno and Florent Pratlong.

It is part of the “Territory and Inclusion” research program led by CEDAG’s “Management, Ethics, Innovation and Society” (MEIS) axis in partnership with the LADYSS Laboratory, the LAREQUOI Center for Research in Management at the Paris-Saclay University in Versailles and the ETI chair at IAE Paris Sorbonne Business School. It questions the links between territory and inclusion with the aim of understanding and characterizing the processes specific to inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystems, as well as identifying the main levers for actions.

In order to explore these themes further, two workshops were organized in 2019 and 2021, bringing together researchers in management sciences, economics and geography, as well as institutional and socio-economic actors. The objective of the first workshop was to clarify the notion of “inclusive territory” while exploring the plurality of entrepreneurial dynamics developed in a territory through the lens of inclusion. A few milestones were thus established. The inclusive territory emerged from the work presented both as a project for society and as an approach to achieving it. At least three approaches could be distinguished: the establishment of a virtuous territorial dynamic (innovation, diversity, sustainable development, social equality), the fight against exclusion (unemployment, poverty, discrimination, dependence) and mobilization on a local project.

During the second workshop, the theme of the organization as an inclusive territory was explored in greater depth, in an attempt to provide answers to two main sets of questions. First of all, questions related to processes and dynamics were addressed: how are organizational inclusion practices built in a territory? What are the strategies of the different stakeholders in the projects or experiments? Is inclusion the goal or the means? Is it instrumentalized, or even hijacked, by the engineering of the systems implemented? The second series of questions addressed the apprehensions, forms and implications of inclusion. Indeed, many organizations, especially large businesses, have set up diversity departments and defined managerial strategies in favor of inclusion: what kind of inclusion is it? How do managers define it? What indicators can be used to monitor its evolution? Are the benefits of the actions carried out internally or within an area of activity concretely observable? What are the impacts on organizations’ stakeholders?

The enlisting of organizations in the partnership dynamics established in a territory has, in particular, been identified as one of the conditions for success, whether these organizations designate private sector businesses or public or associative structures. Moreover, although the organization can be treated as one of the partners in a territory, it can also be analyzed as a space where the economic, social and societal dynamics that generate exclusion or inclusion interact, and then dynamics, being the bearers of inequalities and injustices, are factors of emancipation and diversity. Within local ecosystems, the weight of the managerial practices of large businesses carrying their own organizational culture is important, just as much as those of start-ups or those in force in historically established structures. They can influence or thwart the attempts of local actors carrying out an inclusive society project or, on the contrary, favor them or even stimulate them.

This movement and awareness seem to be growing in various places around the world. For example, at the end of August 2019, 34 multinationals pledged under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to reduce all types of inequality and work towards inclusive growth as part of an alliance, the G7 Business for Inclusive Growth (B4IG). At the same time, leaders of the Business Round Table (BRT), a group of nearly 200 companies with combined revenues of $7 trillion, signed a manifesto on corporate purpose in which they pledged, among other things, to “support the communities in which they work”.

Such advances might seem minimal, purely symbolic or even essentially an indicator of businesses’ reluctance to make a true commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR). Indeed, in 1981, the BRT had already published a declaration on corporate responsibility, which concluded that for each business “its entrepreneurial activities must have a social meaning just as its social activities must have an economic meaning”, and in 1997 it reaffirmed, in a declaration on corporate governance, the essentiality of maximizing the profits of shareholders, thus marking a certain backward step that may have raised questions. Nevertheless, the more reaffirmed display of a desire to be a good corporate citizen confirms the evolution of mentalities and leads us to question the reality of practices and their effects. Moreover, all forms of organization appear to be concerned by the problem of developing territorial inclusion dynamics: they can take the form of residents’ associations, public hospitals, units in the educational sector or even more informal structures.

Thus, inclusion can represent a project for the enterprise. This first book devoted to the theme of facilitating inclusion in a territory focuses more specifically on the role of organizations and entrepreneurial dynamics in inclusive approaches in territories. Two axes have been investigated: the first deals with the entrepreneurial dynamics identifiable in a territory (Part 1); the second delves into the social innovations of inclusive organizations (Part 2). The contributions include a study of the concept of inclusive territory in its general scope (Chapter 1) and analyses of inclusive social management practices in different countries (Chapters 2, 4, 5 and 6), as well as the exploration of specific strategies and tools, such as mobility processes in a logic of inclusion (Chapters 3 and 7) and diversity management approaches in local territories (Chapter 8).

In conclusion, the societal stakes of involving companies and organizations in the inclusive dynamics of a territory are highlighted and discussed. They are even more important in the context of a health crisis that has the indirect effect of aggravating inequalities and poverty. If inclusion, insofar as it is the bearer of a project for society, cannot be reduced to the fight against the various forms of exclusion and discrimination, the actions carried out very often emerge as the last resort for people in great distress.

Note

Introduction written by Annie BARTOLI, Martine BRASSEUR, Didier CHABAUD and Gilles ROUET.

PART 1Entrepreneurial Dynamics that Promote Inclusion Within a Territory

1Inclusive Territory: An Ongoing Conceptualization

What does “inclusive territory” mean? The term is used increasingly often and seems to be used to guide research and management practices in order to solve a series of societal problems, the contours and nature of which are nonetheless vague and confusing. What territories are concerned? What kind of inclusion are we talking about? What is the aim behind choosing a formula combining both terms? Starting from the notion mobilized in the context of the specific practices of local partnerships, does the question raised lead to a conceptualization or even to the emergence of a theoretical current?

In this chapter, we highlight that, under the prism of inclusion, the territory is mainly defined as a space for the development of teleological ecosystems, whose raison d’être is social. An enterprise comes to play an essential role as an unavoidable partner and sometimes as an initiator of local dynamics. Its purpose is then questioned. Termed “inclusive”, the territory thus symbolizes both a societal project and the collective mobilized to make it a reality.

To clarify what characterizes the inclusive approaches implemented in a territory, we rely on a review of the literature and on a thematic content analysis. Several angles of approach seem to be adopted, guiding different objects of study, from discrimination to the shortcomings of care networks and the lack of jobs. Beyond this variety, all researchers are united in proposing models that reverse the traditional relationship between the economic and the social in order to achieve the same objective: the fight against exclusion.

Despite this, does the inclusive territory represent only an attempt to reverse the phenomena of exclusion? This would obscure an important dimension of the approaches involved, which is to take up the challenge of eradicating inequality and poverty. They can only achieve this by inventing new mechanisms and rethinking the notions of territory and inclusion. It is thus a question of stimulating a dynamic of social innovation while taking a different approach to the way we make society.

1.1. From economic territory to inclusive territory

As Pesqueux (2014, p. 60) points out, territory is a fuzzy concept. “It is about multiple references: geographical, historical, ethological, political, anthropological, economic and organizational.” We might also add: sociological. The notion of inclusive territory does not escape the existence of multiple levels of analysis to define it. Many issues are also associated with it, preventing it from being positioned in a specific field and leading us to consider it as transdisciplinary. It finds its routes in the development of partnerships in a territory, which has given rise to numerous studies (Xhauf lair et al. 2010; Torre and Vollet 2015; de Beneditti et al. 2018; Hernandez 2018). Its legacy is therefore first and foremost that of understanding the territory from an economic perspective, as a business zone, a cluster, a competitiveness cluster to better position itself as a teleological ecosystem.

1.1.1. A territory delimited historically by economics

The activity area allows a spatial delimitation of the territory. It is not sufficient to specify the type of territory concerned insofar as its members may cohabit without any real collective dynamic. The term “cluster”, in contrast, refers to networks of enterprises that are strongly anchored locally, often in the same niche or sector of production (Chalaye and Massard 2009; Torre and Zimmermann 2015). They can take the form of clusters of competitiveness, bringing very small enterprises and SMEs in the same field of activity together, with ad hoc associations of other actors depending on the context and initiatives. These clusters aim for pooling or collective action to increase their competitiveness. According to Retour (2008, p. 93), a competitiveness cluster is a “combination, in a given geographic area, of enterprises, training centers and public and private research units, which are committed to working together within the same structure, in order to generate synergies around common projects of an innovative nature with the critical mass necessary for international visibility”. For the inclusive territory, we find the same mobilization of complementary actors around an innovative project. Despite this, although the competitiveness cluster is located in a territory, it does not define it, and both its stakes and positioning are international, making it vulnerable to the fluctuations of global markets (Suire and Vicente 2014). Moreover, the notion of competitiveness clearly orients its activity towards economic objectives.

It should be noted, however, that the social argument is not absent from local policies aimed at promoting clusters. Indeed, it is considered that clusters will lead to growth as a result of economic development and thus to an increase in employment and/or wages in growth markets. Several authors, such as Chatterji et al. (2014) for the United States, have undertaken to evaluate the systems put in place and have emphasized both the driving capacity for local development that clusters represent and the need to remain cautious about the effects observed. One of the major limitations of these forms of local partnership in networks of enterprises is that their impact on a territory remains selective (Fowler and Kleit 2014), which runs counter to an inclusive process. The populations targeted by employment are not indeed those who are the most disadvantaged because of a requirement in terms of skills. The dynamics imparted are not necessarily accompanied by a reduction in long-term unemployment, poverty or discrimination.

1.1.2. A dynamic of coevolution with an inclusive goal

The notion of an ecosystem seems to be closer to the dynamics at work or desired in an inclusive territory. Transposed by analogy to the business world by Moore (1993), it represents a metaphor drawn from the work of Tansley (1935), who is generally credited with being the first to define the concept to refer to the basic ecological unit made up of the environment and the organisms that live there. As Bateson (1972) pointed out, if the processes of coevolution are specific to any system, whether natural or social, and make it possible, by transposition, to characterize business, innovation and knowledge ecosystems, just like inclusive territories, two important differences are identifiable, both in relation to the first concept developed in ecology and between the types of ecosystem that have emerged in the field of enterprises.

The first major difference concerns the purpose of natural ecosystems. Without going into the philosophical debates that are still open, with reference in particular to Kant (2008, first published in 1790) and Spinoza (1993, originally published in 1677), the finality of nature, whether it exists or not, escapes both organisms and their natural environment: we cannot consider that natural ecosystems voluntarily self-orient their coevolution according to a project that they themselves have preconceived. In contrast, and without any generalization to all social ecosystems, when it comes to business, innovation, knowledge or, in this case, inclusion, the collective that the ecosystem represents (Moore 1996) sets itself objectives that constitute its raison d’être, without, however, as Kœnig (2012) points out, being able to really consider with Moore (1996, p. 61) that it “shares a community of destiny”.

It would be more accurate to say, for the inclusive territory, that it makes the community’s destiny its own. The impelled dynamics thus seem to move away from the mechanisms described by the founding theorists of the notion in ecology (Odum 1953), particularly for authors who assert the existence of a control pressure on the ecosystem (Moore 1993) exercised by one of the firms in the ecosystem (Pierce 2009) or by a dedicated body. On the contrary, they stand out as consistent with the principles of regulation defined in cybernetics (Wiener 1950) and more globally with the properties of totality, equifinality and homeostasis in systems (Bertalanffy 1966). It is in this sense that, in this chapter and in order to better understand what the notion of inclusive territory means, the ecosystems concerned will be described as teleological.

The second important difference is the one that seems to us to be able to both question the use of the term “ecosystem” in certain usages while affirming its relevance to the inclusive territory. Already emphasized by several authors (Fréry et al. 2012; Kœnig 2012), it concerns consideration of the environment within which the ecosystem actors are situated in a coevolution dynamic. Indeed, the reference to ecology implies taking the environment into account as one of the interacting parts in the constitution of an ecosystem. Yet, it seems to be forgotten in some definitions. Valkokari (2015) has therefore already examined the differences between the three types of ecosystems commonly distinguished in the world of enterprises to conclude that the rules of the game and the actors’ representations are not the same in the business, innovation and knowledge ecosystems, whose orientations diverge while remaining generally centered on economic concerns and an international positioning. As far as business ecosystems are concerned, we can see that no term potentially referring to the environment in which they are located appears in the inventory of their components carried out by Moore (1996). Koenig (2012, p. 211) even went so far as to say that, for the notion of business ecosystems, if we do not reject the term, it was important “to define it without reference to ecology”.

Nevertheless, some authors, such as Tolstykh et al. (2020), have shown that certain entrepreneurial ecosystems have an impact on the sustainable development of the region where they are anchored, although they consider this impact to be indirect. It is therefore not here again treated as consubstantial with the dynamics in progress, unlike the notion of inclusive territory, according to which the territory is the founder in an approach where it is a matter of boosting its coevolution in interrelation with the emergence of inclusive organizations and the commitment of the various partners following a process of joint transformations. From this angle, the notion of an inclusive territory is therefore closer to the concept of an ecosystem as it has been defined in ecology than the other ecosystems defined in the world of enterprises.

1.1.3. A collaborative cross-sectoral partnership

As with innovation or knowledge, inclusion requires mobilizing institutions or organizations from different activity areas. From public authorities to private businesses via charities or higher education and research establishments (Persais 2020), a local partnership is set up to respond to a shared problem. The nature of the project carried out by actors in the “inclusive territory” ecosystem is also a distinctive element that helps to characterize the shape of the partnership implemented. The initiatives taken to carry it out reverse the relationship between the economic and the social. Inclusion is no longer seen as a contingent positive consequence of economic development in a territory, assessed essentially in terms of job creation (Boutillier et al. 2016). It is the purpose and raison d’être of the ecosystem whose project is societal. The economy is only one means to achieve it in a collaborative social innovation process (Austin et al. 2006).

This collaborative approach is in line with current trends in the development of the socio-economic world, which “is not only made up of organizations, but also of collaborations between these organizations: […] our economic reality is thus increasingly inter-organizational” (Defélix and Picq 2013, p. 42). In addition to intersectorality and its societal aim, however, there is a third specificity for the inclusive territory, inherent to both the territorial dynamics that are being promoted and the inclusion project. Thus, the concept of coopetition defined by Brandenburger and Nalebuff in 1996 allows us to grasp the modes of collaboration generally developed: a rational cooperation in a competitive universe. Moore (2006, p. 73) thus considered that business ecosystems “will require both cooperation and competition among their firms”. For an inclusive goal, competition no longer makes sense either within ecosystems or between territories. As a result, unless we consider with Bengtsson and Kock (1999) that pure cooperation is a special case of coopetition without competition, it is uniquely cooperation that is at stake in inclusive territories and not coopetition. Moreover, several tensions commonly pointed out for any initiative with a societal vocation, such as those between the social and the economic or the individual and the collective, theoretically do not exist in the ecosystem of “inclusive territories”. Unlike, for example, the social and solidarity economy (Audebrand 2017), the objective of the inclusive territory is not to propose a parallel economy but to solve societal problems.

1.2. From exclusion to inclusion

However, what does the inclusion project of “inclusive territory” ecosystems overlap with, and what inclusive approach do they implement? To further explore these notions, a thematic analysis of the content of the literature was conducted with two phases of article collection using keywords on the databases CAIRN, Science Direct and Business Source Premier. The two phases are presented in Table 1.1.

Two main findings emerged from the analysis. First, inclusion is addressed in response to a phenomenon of exclusion without it being specific to the territory concerned, even though it may be exacerbated there. Second, it characterizes the approach to problems identified by focusing on people in order to serve the general interest.

Table 1.1.The two collection phases of the thematic content analysis

First collection phase

1

Second collection phase

Keywords

Inclusive territoryInclusive development

Territory + inclusion + exclusion

Cross-referencing of related concepts

: diversity/discrimination, CSR(corporate social responsibility), etc.

Number of items by theme

Territorial issues: 10Problems of a social group: 9Economic issues: 4Other: 11

Territory: 35,184 itemsInclusion: 1,551,389 itemsExclusion: 833,774 items

1.2.1. A local response to a global exclusion problem

In the articles reviewed, the development of an “inclusive territory“ecosystem was generally approached as a response to an exclusion problem. Concerning the forms of partnerships implemented, Seitanidi (2008) distinguishes three mobilization processes: reactive under external pressure, proactive in anticipation of a potential social risk and adaptive to counter an emerging problem. Overall, we have been able to identify two main orientations of approaches corresponding to a targeting: either a marginalized or discriminated population (women, the long-term unemployed, the dependent elderly, the disabled, etc.), or a disadvantaged territory (Seine-Saint-Denis in Île-de-France, certain African countries, some neighborhoods in New York, etc.).

Concerning the focus on an excluded social group, we were able to find, in all the articles collected, the assertion that although this exclusion is an identifiable societal problem at the country level, and very often at the international level, it can only be dealt with at the regional level and by taking into account the particularities of the different contexts. The use of the term “inclusive territory“thus makes it possible to describe an approach aimed at eradicating a phenomenon of generalized exclusion by proceeding from the local to the global level. It poses the hypothesis that inclusion can only be achieved through the territory and no longer, following the many attempts often listed as ineffective, on the territories. We find the definition of the territory as an ecosystem encompassing both the local actors and their field of action: organisms and their environment.

In addition to the characterization of a pragmatic approach mobilizing good will “on the ground”, the development of an inclusive territory has one of its foundations in the observation that the excluded population targeted by the system put in place is often trapped in a process of multiple forms of exclusion that are self-perpetuating. Discrimination keeps people out of work; unemployment leads to poverty, which limits or blocks access to information and knowledge, and also to healthcare, and reduces employment opportunities while stigmatizing the excluded. The authors draw on the work of economists and sociologists, such as Gazier (2010) and Banerjee and Duflo (2011), to support an argument that the reversal of this pernicious dynamic requires a global understanding of the local context of all these exclusions suffered by a given population.

Referring to the work of Paugam (1991), inclusion of the targeted social categories or groups cannot be met just with the establishment of help or support systems, which, although considered necessary for their survival in decent conditions, are also accused of keeping them in an inferior and devalued position. The inclusive territory approach is different. The objective is to develop a territory where the people concerned can escape from the social disqualification they have suffered. In contrast to traditional social practices, for example, in line with the work of Chevreuse (1979), the actions are no longer focused on an organization or an institution, but on a set of partner organizations and institutions. The question is no longer simply to find or preserve an inescapably precarious place for destitute individuals. It is to transform inclusion practices by considering the banishment of a given social category in a territory as a collective failure. Several works deal with care networks for the elderly, which are designed to preserve their lifestyles by keeping them at home in the city. Some have even coined a term for the inclusive territory thus constructed: the “gerontological territory” (Henrard 2010; Mahmoudi et al. 2010; Petitot et al. 2010; Vermorel and Rumeau 2010).

The focus on a disadvantaged territory seems to follow on from two observations: on the one hand, the existence of an “excluded territory” and, on the other hand, the intersectionality of exclusion phenomena. The first starts with a geographical territory that brings together populations in great poverty and creates a catalyst for all the markers of exclusion. Inequalities can then be identified no longer between social groups but between territories. Educational, health, digital and even generational fractures are then underlined between areas where the populations live. The notion of a territory is transformed by identification of the borders of a country, a region, a department, a city or even a neighborhood, grouping together the excluded just as much as they stigmatize them. These borders prove difficult to cross. Inclusive partnerships are therefore developed for an entire territory. They are mobilized with actions that aim to promote a social mix and diversity, others that aim to generate bridges giving access to training, employment and culture and still others that aim to identify and make visible the territory’s resources in order to change its image.

Following the philosopher Corine Pelluchon (2011), it is the view of a vulnerable and/or different Other, a discriminated social group or an excluded territory, that is questioned. In this approach, the inclusive territory presents several important characteristics that can be found in research before the notion of the inclusive territory became popular and in studies that aim to question the notion of territory:

– construction of a space for action by the actors (Friedmann and Weaver 1979; Raffestin 1980);

– “active” understanding of the territory (Pesqueux 2014);

– the proximity and collaboration of actors as a territorial resource (Colletis and Pecqueur 1993; Rodet-Kroichvili 2018);

– the possibility of informality as a condition for success (Njifen 2014);

– “open” locations in the sense of a dynamic territory allowing for recomposition and overlap (Barabel et al. 2009; Torre 2018).

1.2.2. Serving people in the general interest

The second phase of data collection explored the notion of inclusion in greater depth. It is often linked to the concept of diversity and the rebirth of singularities, thus time as resources (Shore et al. 2011; Nishii 2013). It is therefore distinguished from integration, which, on the one hand, approaches differences as constraints or shortcomings (Plaisance et al. 2007) and, on the other hand, corresponds to a requirement of social conformity to norms or a dominant culture (Pitsis et al. 2004). In contrast, inclusion in organizations is associated with the development of a sense of belonging to the same work community in a civic conception of collective life that respects the well-being and autonomy of individuals (Bouquet 2015).

Inclusive practices thus seem to be constructed according to what Morin (1990a) would call a dialogical principle, i.e. according to two opposing and indissociable logics that are linked into a unity in the maintenance of their duality: the development of the cohesion of a collective and the affirmation of the individualities of its members. From this perspective, inclusion can be understood as the attempt to permanently reconcile two forces, one centripetal, generating similarities and proceeding by assimilating individuals into a community, the other centrifugal and “atomizing”, maintaining heterogeneity and social distance. The possibility of inclusion could be seen as illusory, which some authors, such as Gillig (2006) for the inclusion of disabled students in school, have questioned.

Generally speaking, partnerships between organizations are implemented with the “imperative to realize benefits for the wider community rather than for special interests” (Sullivan and Skelcher 2002, p. 752). Although the purpose of the inclusive territory is clearly part of this quest, the notion of general interest that is its object is nonetheless undefinable (Rangeon 1986). The use of the expression, which is very widespread in the political domain of public administration or within certain enterprises, can lead to it being diverted from its original meaning of “everyone’s interest”, deriving the interest of the State or of an institution (Lascoumes and Le Bourhis 1998). Concerning the inclusive territory, the concern for the general interest asserted at the level of a territory transcends not only personal but organizational interests: within the ecosystem, each party acts in concert for the whole. Several studies have questioned the managerial repercussions induced by these approaches generally re-situated in a stance of corporate social responsibility (CSR), as outlined recently in a collective work by Rey and Vivès (2020). The authors confirm the impetus of a coevolution dynamic for the composites of the inclusive territory in interrelation with the environment.

Moreover, the intersectoriality of organizational partnerships is accompanied by the necessary individual commitment of the target population and the consideration of territorial particularities and dynamics. Several studies have shown that the motivations of partners to engage in teleological ecosystems are multiple. In the same way, the impact of the systems implemented can be apprehended in different ways (van Tulder et al. 2016), opening a debate on the evaluation methods to be implemented and on the interpretation in terms of success or failure of the approaches sometimes initiated with public aid. For inclusive territories, a critical stance can be adopted concerning indicators of success and an approach of assessment by results. Is not inclusion observable from the very first initiative of an inclusive territory because of its integration of previously excluded populations into the system?

Any action implemented is thus inherently inclusive. This implies, of course, that these populations, the targets of inclusion, are not treated as objects of the ecosystem project implemented, but as one of its components. The contrary would be paradoxical, unless the reification of the excluded and the impossibility of evaluating the systems represent the limits or potential abuses of the systems implemented.

In any case, inclusion operates in a relationship between the individual and the collective, which we describe as dialogical in reference to Morin (1990b), i.e. in an association of two different logics that can be considered both antagonistic and complementary, one affirming the singularity of individuals and the second seeking their assimilation, while maintaining this duality in the unity sought. The notion of inclusion used by actors in inclusive territories can thus be enlightened by the concept of reliance (Morin 2004, p. 239), while positioning the problem to be solved in the field of ethics: reliance is “activating”, while “linking” is participating and “linked” passive. Inclusion thus seems to emerge as an act of reliance “with an other, reliance with a community, with a society and, at the limit, reliance with the human species”, which, for Morin (2004, p. 16), defines the moral act.

1.3. Conclusion