The Thesis is composed by three complementary research investigations on the economic and policy aspects of EU corporate R&D.Collectively, the work first reviews the theoretical and empirical literature of corporate R&D intensity decomposition; it then investigates the EU R&D intensity and its decomposition elements comparatively with most closed competitors and with emerging economies over the period 2005-2013. Finally, it inspects further some key aspects that can be associated to the EU R&D intensity gap: sectoral dynamics and the resulting sectoral and technological specialisations as well as the drivers for R&D investment growth across sectors and firms' age groups of top R&D investing firms over time. These studies also address the possible policy implications that derive from their outcomes.The investigations rely on literature as well as on company data, mainly from nine editions (2006-2014) of the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard. For analytical purposes they use literature review, meta-analysis, descriptive statistics, R&D intensity decomposition computational approach, Manhattan distance and Technological Revealed Comparative Advantage metrics, and a multinominal logit regression model. The results of these three research works are novel in several aspects. It indicates that literature results on R&D intensity decomposition differ because of data and methodological heterogeneities, and that the structural cause is the main determinant of EU R&D intensity gap if sector compositions of the countries are considered. It inspects how the use of different data sources and analytical methods impact differently on R&D intensity decomposition results, and what the analytical and policy implications are.The empirical research results of this Thesis confirm the structural nature of the EU R&D intensity gap. In the last decade the gap between the EU and the USA has widened, whereas the EU gap with Japan has remained relatively stable. In contrast, the emerging countries' R&D intensity gap compared to the EU has remained relatively stable, while companies from emerging economies are considerably reducing such gap. Besides, as novel contribution to the state of the art of the literature, this Thesis uncovers the differences between EU and US by inspecting which sectors, countries and firms are more accountable for the aggregate R&D intensity performance of these two economies, and it finds a high heterogeneity of firms' R&D intensity within sectors. Furthermore, it shows that there is a bigger population of both larger and smaller US top R&D firms which invest more strongly in R&D than competitors, and that the global R&D investment is concentrated in a few firms, countries and industries. Finally, the research founds a slightly higher EU R&D shift over sectors compared to the US, but not strongly enough towards high-tech sectors. Also, the EU has an even broader technological specialisation than its already broad industrial R&D sector specialisation, while the USA leads by number of technological fields belonging mostly to the industrial R&D sectors of its specialisation. Furthermore, the EU has been better able than the USA and Japan to maintain its world share of R&D investment even during the years of economic and financial crisis. Lastly, the study also indicates that firms make a complementary use of capital expenditures and R&D intensity for their R&D investment growth strategies and it reveals that there are differences in their use between firms' age classes across sectors. Overall, the main results of the Thesis suggest that to reach a more positive R&D dynamics and boost its competitiveness, the EU should adapt its industrial structure and increase the weight of high R&D intensive sectors. A focus on creating the conditions for firm creation and growth in new-emerging innovative sectors is advised together with favouring the exploitation of the full capacity of EU leading - but mature - sectors to also absorb high-technology from other sectors. / Doctorat en Sciences économiques et de gestion / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

L’action en justice intentée en matière de Responsabilité Sociale de l’Entreprise révèle certaines limites lorsque les justiciables parties prenantes souhaitent protéger leurs intérêts. Par une juridicisation du droit de la RSE à mi-chemin entre la soft law et la hard law, l’action en justice des parties prenantes pourrait être véritablement efficiente. Dès lors, les mécanismes processuels traditionnels sont insuffisants lorsqu’il s’agit d’agir en justice dans ce domaine. C’est notamment à travers l’intérêt et la qualité à agir en justice des parties prenantes que des aménagements de la procédure civile vont être véritablement nécessaires. Des améliorations supplémentaires telles que l’instauration d’une action de groupe élargie au domaine de la RSE et davantage américanisée permettrait notamment aux parties prenantes d’assurer leur défense grâce à un dispositif nouveau très efficace. De plus et par la voie extrajudiciaire des modes alternatifs de règlement des litiges, les acteurs de la RSE peuvent également décider de porter le différend qui les oppose hors de la connaissance du juge étatique. Ce choix d’action peut être révélateur d’une préférence pour une justice davantage négociée. Ces propositions semblent être indispensables à la mise en œuvre d’une action en justice efficace en matière de RSE. Les parties prenantes pourront alors agir en justice de manière inédite afin de parachever leur protection. Les nécessités juridiques et sociales actuelles semblent ainsi faire évoluer le droit afin que les parties prenantes puissent bénéficier d’une action en justice considérée comme un véritable contre-pouvoir face à l’entreprise. / Legal actions brought to court concerning Corporate Social Responsability reveal certain limits when litigants’ stakeholders wish to protect their interests. The Corporate Social Responsability law falls between soft law and hard law. Going through CSR law’s judicalization could really make litigation of stakeholders efficient. Usual processual mechanisms are insufficient once an action has to be brought to court dealing with CSR. The civil procedure will need some changes, specifically relating to legal standing and stakeholder interest. Some added improvement would allow stakeholders to ensure their legal defence thanks to this new and efficient legal device. The setting up of a collective action including a CSR with more resemblance to the American one would represent one such improvement. Moreover, stakeholders can decide to settle the matter out-of-court with an extrajudicial approach, using alternative dispute resolution. This choice could amount to a more negotiated inflection of justice. These proposals seem to be necessary to settle an efficient legal action concerning CSR. In this way stakeholders will be able to litigate in a whole new way in order to consolidate their protection. Current legal and social needs seem to make the law evolve so that stakeholders benefit from a legal action which can be considered as a real countervailing power against a corporation.

Dans un contexte économique instable, résultant notamment de la mondialisation des échanges, de la financiarisationde l’économie et de l’accélération des mutations technologiques, caractérisé de surcroît par l’apathie endémique de lacroissance économique française, la prospérité et la survie des entreprises dépendent de leur capacité à s’adapter enpermanence aux évolutions du marché pour pouvoir sauvegarder leur compétitivité, assurer leur développement etfaire face à une concurrence toujours plus vive. Si les restructurations sont indispensables pour assurer la pérennité desentreprises dont dépendent le maintien de l’emploi, le dynamisme du marché du travail et la création de richesse, ellesmettent fréquemment en péril les intérêts des salariés. Nombre d’entre elles menacent ainsi leur emploi et partant leursécurité économique et matérielle, mais également leurs droits collectifs qu’il s’agisse des avantages issus de leurstatut collectif ou de leur droit à participer à la détermination de leurs conditions de travail et à la gestion del’entreprise via leurs représentants, dont le mandat peut être affecté par une restructuration. Si ces opérations mettenten péril les intérêts des salariés et génèrent un coût social largement assumé par la collectivité nationale, le droit, enparticulier le droit social, ne peut remettre en cause les projets de restructuration. Ces décisions et leur mise en oeuvrerelèvent en effet de la liberté d’entreprendre des dirigeants de l’entreprise à laquelle le droit social ne saurait porteratteinte en s’immisçant dans leurs choix économiques et stratégiques. L’objet de cette étude est donc d’exposercomment, en dépit de son incapacité à influer sur les décisions de restructurations, le droit social tente d’en limiter lecoût social, en préservant au mieux les intérêts des salariés. / In an unsettled economic climate, the result in particular of globalisation of trade, the financialisation of the economyand accelerating technological change, further marked by the endemic apathy of French economic growth, theprosperity and survival of companies depend on their capacity to adapt constantly to market trends in order tosafeguard their competitiveness, to ensure their development and to stand up to ever increasingly harsh competition.Whilst restructuring is essential to ensure the long-term survival of companies, on which maintaining jobs, a dynamiclabour market and the creation of wealth all depend, it frequently endangers the interests of employees. Manyrestructuring operations thus threaten their employment and consequently their economic and material security, butalso their collective rights when it comes to advantages resulting from their collective status or their right to participatein determining their working conditions and in the management of the company through their representatives, whosemandate may be impacted by a restructuring operation. While such operations endanger the interests of employees andgenerate a social cost borne to a large extent by the national community, law, and in particular social law, cannotchallenge restructuring projects. Such decisions and their implementation fall within the purview of the freedom to actenjoyed by corporate managers that social law cannot in any way impede by interfering in their economic and strategicchoices. The purpose of this study is therefore to show how social law, despite its inability to influence restructuringdecisions, seeks to limit the social cost by preserving as best as possible the interests of employees.