Abstract
Corporate social responsibility (CSR), a concept that has long aroused general interest without occupying a major place. Having been the subject of studies for several decades, today it becomes finally visible in the public space. Nevertheless, CSR gives rise to various questions, particularly on the academic level. It is the subject of debate and controversy among researchers in the scientific community.After selective readings, we see two main axes among researchers: authors who advocate social responsibility stemming from the concept of corporate social responsibility, while others mobilize to defend concepts of corporate governance, corporate citizen , business or investment ethics or even sustainable or sustainable development ... once the scientific literature has been invested, we see that companies do not have the same vision or the same conception of CSR, and this obviously depends on several players. All these actors, depending on their sectoral and institutional affiliation, use and position themselves on CSR in different, even sometimes quite contradictory, ways (Champion, Gendron, Lapointe, 2005).The study of CSR as a social construct is consistent with the concept of stakeholders, but the multiplicity of theories has given rise to significant conceptual confusion. In our work, we distance ourselves from the premises that companies initiate CSR actions primarily in reaction to external pressures to which they are subject from stakeholders. We do not want to rule out the hypothesis that similar pressures can also come from actors who are generally not identified as stakeholders.In other words, CSR is a defined, developed, appropriates, shaped activity, implemented socially and experienced subjectively depending on the contexts and on the configured application. This approach prompts us to view CSR as a dynamic, controversial object of action constantly marked by a world characterized by instability and uncertainty. In addition, CSR has become an important topic in management. The authors who have or who invest in this research object are part of an approach intended to go into formalization based on multiple cases of CSR practices in companies. This is the case, for example, of J. Dupuis and C. Le Bras (2009) who cite numerous authors in one of their papers (de Bry, 1998; Capron and Quairel, 2004; Chauveau and Rose, 2003; David et al. ., 2005; De Woot, 2004; Dupuis, 2005; Dupuis et le Bas, 2005 a and b; Gendron et al., 2004; Iglaens, 2004; Loleva, 2005; Pesqueux, 2003; Perez, 2002; 2003). The two authors also indicate in their work that CSR is a strategic requirement carried by major international organizations such as the ILO (International Labor Office), the EC (European Commission) or the UN (United Nations Organization). Their approach clearly shows that CSR is a recurring subject of debates and exchanges between practitioners, professionals, and business leaders (J.C Dupuis and C. Le Bras, 2009).The thesis is devoted to the observation of the practices of two companies in the cosmetics industry (L’Oréal and Pierre Fabre) that we have chosen as a practical case. Through these two cases we want to understand their mode of governance, their strategy, their organizational logic and the way in which they appropriate the CSR approach. Reflection on CSR cannot be distinguished from taking into account the managerial atmosphere that companies can establish in a coherent or more vague manner. Low visibility of managerial orientations often gives rise to opportunism and deviant orientations