Confrontés au pouvoir de marché croissant de la grande distribution française, les fournisseurs n’ont cessé de demander l’intervention de l’Etat. Cette intervention a pris la forme du titre IV du livre IV du Code de commerce, un ensemble de règles juridiques encadrant les négociations commerciales annuelles entre distributeurs et fournisseurs. Cette thèse décrit les transformations du Titre IV et évalue la portée du recours au droit dans un contexte marchand. L’enquête porte sur l’élaboration des règles du Titre IV, le contrôle entrepris par la DGCCRF (une administration du ministère de l’Economie et des Finances) ainsi que l’appropriation de ces règles par l’une des enseignes de la distribution française. Les résultats éclairent les conditions sociales d’efficacité des lois destinées à protéger des acteurs économiques faibles. Pour rendre le Titre IV efficace, l’administration a introduit dans le droit des principes moraux et a incité les juges à s’écarter des normes écrites pour évaluer les situations au cas par cas. Les résultats montrent également les ambiguïtés d’un tel recours au droit. Pour s’approprier et contourner les règles dirigées contre elle, la grande distribution s’est dotée de ressources juridiques. Face à cela, l’administration a réagi en rendant les règles plus précises, facilitant ainsi de nouveaux contournements par les distributeurs. Le recours au droit crée également une solidarité entre les professionnels du Titre IV, qu’ils soient affiliés à l’administration, aux fournisseurs ou aux distributeurs. Chez ces professionnels, la défense de l’autonomie du monde du Titre IV finit par primer sur les intérêts des acteurs qu’ils sont censés représenter. / Faced with the increasing market power of French mass retail, suppliers lobbied the state into protecting them. The state intervened by creating a new set of rules (“Titre IV du livre IV du Code de commerce”: henceforth “Title IV”) that specifically targeted the annual bargaining process between retailers and suppliers. This dissertation describes the transformation of Title IV and questions whether law constitutes a useful resource to settle structural economic imbalances. To achieve this, I investigated how Title IV was drafted and enforced by DGCCRF (a department of the French ministry of Finance) and how retailers responded to those rules. Results show how to turn economic and commercial law into an effective weapon in the hands of weaker market players. To make Title IV effective, the state regulator incorporated moral principles into statutes and encouraged judges to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis, rather than strictly following the letter of the law. However, results also show the limits of law as a means of settling economic imbalances. By hiring lawyers and complying symbolically with regulations (rather than obeying the letter of the law), mass retailers gradually internalized Title IV. DGCCRF responded by drafting more precise rules. This had the unexpected consequence of making symbolic compliance even more widespread. Title IV had another unexpected effect. It created a sense of solidarity among a group of legal professionals and civil servants. To that group, defending the boundaries of Title IV as a field of expertise became more important than defending specific economic interests.

The research problem for this study focused on organizations' inability to derive strategic value from the law due to the lack of integration between legal strategy and business strategy. The purpose of this study was to build consensus among in-house general counsel working across business industries in the United States with regard to techniques that will alter unreceptive managerial viewpoints toward the strategic value of law within the corporate setting. The research question centered on assessing the level of consensus among general counsel relative to those techniques. This 3-round qualitative Delphi study began with open-ended questions in Round 1 and progressed toward consensus in Round 3. The results encompass a consensus by the panel on 25 techniques for altering unreceptive managerial viewpoints toward the law spanning 5 categories: integrating legal considerations with business processes, improving workplace collaboration between in-house counsel and managers, leadership qualities and expectations of counsel, understanding legal implications of business decisions, and demonstration of strategic value. This was the first study to apply the construct of consensus to the generation of techniques by general counsel for altering unreceptive managerial viewpoints toward the strategic value of law. Incorporating the techniques identified in this study into the development of coaching practices, team building sessions, or other collaborative exercises may lead to positive social change through: (a) reduced anxiety stemming from organizational conflict between managers and in-house counsel; (b) decreased managerial burnout, absenteeism, and turnover due to organizational conflict with in-house counsel; and, (c) decreased workplace resistance between managers and in-house counsel.