Over the past twenty years, the term stakeholder values has become a common word, the meaning of which depends on its user and which is regularly used in the field of management. It is especially popular for talking about the behavior of companies towards their partners and employees. However, its popularization and distribution eroded its content and ambiguously used it in the framework of stakeholder theory.

To remove doubts, it seems necessary to look at the fundamental works in philosophy. This desire for reading is not far from the centers of interest associated with company management, far from it. A simple example may clarify this statement. The management of the group consists of a number of committees whose task is to ensure the management of the group in the interests and respect of shareholders, sustainable development and, to a lesser extent, workers and public health. Two groups of scientists and representatives of non-governmental associations are regularly consulted on biodiversity and sustainable development.

Thus, if we talk about business case analysis, the principle officially demonstrates its desire to associate other players, in addition to shareholders, only with its decisions and applies means that allow them to speak out and influence management decisions.

But why is it the pursuit of automated test generation? In the name of what values and how does the group identify these players, more commonly called stakeholders d return on investment? The answer to these two questions requires immersion in philosophy and a rethinking of texts on stakeholder theory.

Freeman in 1994 proposed a definition of stakeholders. These are legal entities associated with the company that either influence it or are under its influence. These identified relationships should encourage managers to consider stakeholders in their management. Then, ultimately, it is necessary to introduce a kind of participatory democracy into the group, in which leaders no longer have to consider only shareholder directives. The group example does not mention relationships with suppliers or subcontractors.

Does this mean that they are less important than biodiversity? Information on banks and local or national authorities is not provided. Do they have less interest in working with this industrial group than workers, or less influence? The concept of the company as part of a network of actors and stakeholders was not born with the company. It took a few changes in how we deal with this in society.

Until the 1930s, the company was presented in the form of a black box, the contents of which could not be the subject of study or observation. Thus, the question of responsibility did not arise, since the company’s mission was to become an active participant in the markets in which it intervened. What characterized this was a perfect identity between the owner and the decision maker.

Indeed, the capital necessary for its existence belonged to the sole owner, who was simultaneously the manager. The theory of stakeholder values has its official roots in the 1930s. Burl and Mins proceed from the existing separation of management power (managers) and the real property of the company (shareholders). They then argue that this gap prevents shareholders from maximizing profits and optimizing resources.

The diverging interests of the two organizations lead to a sometimes open conflict. The separation between ownership and decision is analyzed here in terms of owners’ expectations. However, the authors recognize the need to raise awareness that the company is responsible for its activities, not only at the expense of profit. Burl and Mins also allow the existence of a form of pressure on decision makers to integrate other aspects besides the only profit maximization. The separation between ownership and decision also served as the starting point for the initial analysis. According to him, the problem of corporate social responsibility arose with the advent of the status of the company as a legal entity. Indeed, corporate social responsibility is not new in itself. For several decades, employers’ organizations have organized the use of their wealth to distribute part of the profits among workers in various forms.