A global value chain fragments production among several key actors and territories ( Jones & Kierskowski, 2001 ). Each actor specializes in a specific activity, with the shared objective of creating final added value through intermediate added value ( Gereffi & Fernandez-Stark, 2016 ). Global value chains are driven by MNEs as the cores around which layers of suppliers of different tiers, as well as the entire chain of subcontractors required to achieve the final product, are assembled ( Gereffi et al., 2005 ; Bair, 2005 ; Bair & Palpacuer, 2015 ; Ryan P. et al., 2022 , Kano et al., 2020 ). These good practices (innovation & cooperation: Mudambi et al., 2008 ; Strange & Magnan, 2018 ) and key territories are being networked globally in a context of advanced globalization and digitalization ( Hudson, 2004 ; Coe et al., 2008 ; Anner, 2015 ; Hammer & Plugor, 2019 ; Coe & Yeung, 2019 ).

However, GVCs face tremendous change as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and shortages in value chains. In addition to these external shocks, GVCs must face two internal mechanisms. The first is the ambition for multinationals to reorganize their operations in a more regional manner. The second is the attempts of many countries to produce and capture greater value added through their efforts to train people and develop ESG-based solutions ( Amachraa & Quelin, 2022 ).

Biden’s administration published, back in 2021, a report on “Building Resilient Supply Chain, Revitalizing American Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad Growth”², which identified five vulnerabilities in global value chains that accelerate their reconfiguration: semiconductors, batteries, rare earths, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and large-scale utilities. Its authors, as well as those behind the McKinsey Global Institute’s report “Risk, Resilience, and Rebalancing in GVCs”³ suggested a series of measures and solutions, such as:

´ Relocation of production,

´ Diversification of suppliers,

´ Establishment of strategic stocks,

´ Risk management and adaptation capacities,

´ Redundancy of transportation networks,

´ Reduction of product complexity

Countries and MNEs involved in the development of GVCs have therefore begun processes of specialization, decoupling, and/or relocation ( Kowalski et al., 2015 ; Baldwin & Tomiura, 2020 ; Shih, 2020 ; Gereffi et al., 2022 ), with ESG targets because even MNEs are targeted for their social and environmental impact ( UNCTAD, 2013 ; Bair & Palpacuer, 2015 ; International Labor Organization, 2016 ; Kano et al., 2020 ; Ashwin et al., 2020 ; Gereffi et al., 2022 ; Phillips et al., 2022 ; Kano et al., 2022 ).

However, these actions have led to a severe criticism of GVCs ( IMF, 2022 ), as there appeared to be an imbalance in value sharing between contractors and suppliers of the same GVC ( Mudambi et al., 2008 ; Porter & Kramer, 2011 ; Meng et al., 2020 ) and a paradox between “market” economic efficiency and “society” vulnerabilities ( Strange & Humphrey, 2019 ; Kano et al., 2022 ).

The debate on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) dates back to the 1970s, with the theory of shareholders ( Friedman, 1970 ). According to the author, “there is only one corporate social responsibility, and that is to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase profits for shareholders, as long as the company remains within the rules of the game, that is, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud”. Fredman then introduced “stakeholder theory” by referring to the need for a company to manage relationships with specific stakeholders in an action-oriented manner. “A stakeholder in an organization is any group or individual who may affect or be affected by the achievement of the organization’s goals” ( Fredman, 1994 ; Friedman et al., 2005 ). In this context, a stakeholder must be legitimate, empowered, and embody a certain urgency ( Mitchell et al., 1997 ).

In the 1990s, CSR was seen as the reconciliation between the interests of the company and the general interest. Later, in the 2000s, companies publicly invited themselves to the debate on sustainable development. However, they were increasingly facing pressure from shareholders, employees, consumers, civil society, and the regulatory framework.

As a result, the concept of “social responsibility” emerged, based on the right of these various stakeholders to be scrutinized and expressed in terms of transparency, risk, and reputation. According to Visser (2011) , firms tend to go through five stages, although they may have activities in several stages at once. The greed phase is characterized by limited defensive actions while protecting shareholder value. The philanthropy phase is about helping communities through charitable actions. Then, companies take a more promotional and marketing approach by using CSR to improve their image and public relations. The period of risk management begins when companies decide to adhere to CSR codes and implement social and environmental management systems in their core activities. Finally, companies enter a new period of responsibility based on innovation in operating models, revolutionizing processes, products, and services, and lobbying for progressive national and international policies ( Visser, 2011 ). The aim is to address the root causes of unsustainability and irresponsibility. Thus, CSR could comprise four essential components:

´ Value creation

´ Good governance

´ Social contribution

´ Environmental integrity

However, CSR aims to complete the economic actions of companies with complementary social, environmental, cultural, and sporting actions. “These are essentially selective and compartmentalized “programs”, rather than holistic and systemic changes” ( Hollender & Breen, 2010 ). CSR has neither the capacity nor the obligation to solve complex social, environmental, and ethical problems. But then, unless CSR is really aimed at solving these issues and reversing negative trends, what would be its point?

The concept of “Creating Shared Value” (CSV) appeared out of a series of Harvard Business Review articles written by Porter and Kramer. This work, which focused explicitly on the non-profit sector, quickly expanded to explore how corporate philanthropy can create social and economic value. In 2006, they evolved into how to integrate CSR into core business strategy, and the term “shared value” was coined for the first time. Shared value proposes to transform business-relevant social issues into business opportunities, thereby contributing to solving critical societal challenges while generating greater profitability. Within this framework, three ways to create shared value have been established:

´ Redefining products and markets by responding to social problems where consumers can be served and contribute to the common good.

´ Redefining productivity in the value chain by simultaneously improving the social, environmental, and economic capacities of supply chain stakeholders.

´ Enabling the development of local clusters so that various development goals can be achieved in cooperation with local providers and institutions ( Porter & Kramer, 2011 ).

Beyond its impact, CSV has clear strengths, one of which is the unequivocal elevation of social objectives to a strategic level. They also take a significant step forward in understanding the role of governments in corporate social initiatives, articulating a clear objective through the co-construction of a regulatory framework that enhances shared value, sets goals, and drives innovation.

This concept was presented as a great idea, but it is indeed a narrower reading of the literature of existing concepts such as CSR, stakeholder theory, social dialogue, and social innovation. Indeed, CSV ignores the tensions between social and economic objectives. The great difficulty is to maintain both social and financial objectives, which has been ignored in the articles of Porter and Kramer ( Crane, Palazzo, & Matten, 2014 ). Therefore, what Reich criticized about CSR in general might be true for CSV, i.e., instead of promoting the common good, CSV could promote more sophisticated “greenwashing” or “social washing” strategies.

The concept of creating shared value is also company-centric: companies can turn some of their social and environmental problems into win-win solutions. However, they would need a thriving community, not only to create demand for their products but also to provide essential public goods as well as an enabling environment to ensure maximum well-being with the right use of resources. For its part, communities need thriving businesses to provide jobs and wealth creation opportunities for their citizens.

Another way of transforming value chains at territorial levels is through “inclusive economy” models, which refer to the harmonious participation of stakeholders in the economic life of a value chain ( Prahalad & Hart, 2002 ; Elkington, 2018 ; Yunus et al., 2015 ). This involves an exchange between the governance structure of the value chain and its various stakeholders. Thus, a firm or stakeholder should be considered economically inclusive if it is able to actively contribute (i.e., “give”) to the economy and, in return, benefit from the value created by economic activity (i.e., “receive” something in return)⁴. In this case, “an inclusive enterprise” is a form of enterprise that explicitly states that its objective is to foster the economic inclusion of actors who are ordinarily excluded from participating in national economies and firms.

Value chains can contribute through three interrelated levers: by facilitating access to decent work (especially for unemployed youth and women), fairly remunerated and stable enough to allow for personal life planning; by providing access to goods and services that are either of vital importance or essential in the current social context; and, by providing access to finance, thereby accelerating integration and economic autonomy as it facilitates access to either of the two levers mentioned above.

A territory is a complex and multidimensional concept. It is not only a geographical space of projects but also one of dynamic production systems and governance relationships among different stakeholders. Thus, the territory is built over the long term and is developed through interactions and close connections between internal and external actors ( Torre, 2019 ). It is the result of a long history and concerns rooted in local cultures and customs, the expression of the present, and conditions for its future. A territory is also a feeling of belonging, modes of public authority, and specific rules of organization and function ( Moine, 2007 ; Torre & Zimmerman, 2015 ).

Territorial development is closely linked to the notion of localized production systems, referring to industrial districts ( Marshall, 1919 ) or clusters ( Porter, 1985 ). An industrial district is a collection of small and medium-sized businesses that are all located in the same geographical area but are capable of creating a competitive advantage on a global scale. Industrial districts are characterized by a high degree of social proximity among their members, often sharing similar cultures and values. They develop local content at a low technological level but remain focused on relationships and formal exchanges in which the production of knowledge is essential to territorial development ( Camagni & Maillat, 2006 ).

In 1985, Porter popularized the concept of the “cluster”, which encompasses a group of companies and laboratories working in similar industries in the same geographical area, whose interactions related to know-how and technology allow them to increase their performance, competitiveness, and innovation. Other research focused on business ecosystems, which are networks of companies based on co-evolution and cooperation ( Brandenburger & Nateberff, 1996 ). These ecosystems bring together a variety of actors (such as companies, labs, centers, etc.). Let’s not forget the new local spaces for collaborative innovation such as fab labs, makerspaces, coworking spaces, incubators, living labs, accelerators, etc. In general, these platforms offer young entrepreneurs mentoring, innovative solutions, as well as funding and networks.

Another dimension of territorial development analysis relates to the notion of governance. It refers to the process of coordination among different actors, with different resources, who come together around issues with regards to their territory and contribute, with the help of appropriate tools and structures, to the development of common territorial development projects ( Torre & Traversac, 2011 ). Thus, good governance must emerge from the bottom up, help achieve collective objectives, and facilitate citizen participation in decision-making. In this context, governance applies to:

´ Economic and social actors who wish to collaborate and exchange their expertise to generate territorial innovation ( Kooiman, 2000 ).

´ Public-private partnerships (PPP) are defined through the definition of territorial development objectives ( Wettenhall, 2003 ).

´ The participation of various organizations (companies, NGOs, associations, cooperatives, etc.) in the development of laws, rules, and regulations ( Pierre, 2000 ).

Based on production and governance reports, the economic performance of territories depends on the contributions made by the achievements of its various production sectors, which shifts the question of the competitiveness of companies to that of the territories. Accordingly, the performance of territories and the dynamics of development depend on the ability of local actors to set up productions that differentiate them from competitors, either through the specificity of the product itself, through the specificity of the quality and the production process, or through an innovation driver. The models of local productive systems represent a manifestation of the links among companies and territories.

Three economists have shaped the question of the entrepreneur. Richard Cantillon (1680-1735) defined the entrepreneur as a person who takes risks in an uncertain market. According to this author, the entrepreneur is a “catalyst for production and trade”. A century later, Jean Baptiste Say (1767-1832) developed the theory of the “entrepreneur’s profession” and was able to define the entrepreneur as the link between knowledge and industry. For the economist Joseph Alois Schumpeter ( Uzunidis & Boutillier, 2015 ), the entrepreneur is an economic agent who creates “new combinations of production factors” that is “investment opportunities”. Schumpter is known for his concept of “creative destruction of innovation”, according to which an entrepreneur is a person who innovates, loves the game, and assumes the risk. This concept also finds its meaning in the various publications of Harvard Business School: it is now a process that allows an individual to create a new organization and innovate in the face of uncertainties.

The entrepreneur seeks to exploit opportunities with financial resources that he does not have. He seeks to profit by obtaining markets. It ultimately depends on customers and consumers (Ludwing von Mises, 1881-1973). According to Israel Kirzner, opportunities arise from imbalance. In this context, the entrepreneur does not seek the opportunity but rather discovers the information and exploits the ignorance of the public. Kizner developed the concept of “entrepreneurial vigilance”, i.e., entrepreneurs’ ability to organize information intuitively. In addition, Filion L. J. (1997) defined entrepreneurship as “the field that studies the practice of entrepreneurs, their activities, their characteristics, the economic and social effects of their behavior, as well as the modes of support provided to them to facilitate the realization of entrepreneurial activities”.

Other recent research looks at the concept of entrepreneurial behavior, i.e., the entrepreneur himself, his ideas, his capacity, his actions, his emotions, his values, his skills, and the logic of his action: the theory of entrepreneurial characteristics ( McStay, D., 2008 ); entrepreneurial intention-based models such as Shapero and Sokol (1982) and Ajzen (1991) models; entrepreneurial capacity to exploit business and social opportunities ( Bygrave & Minniti, 2000 ); and cognitive mechanisms of entrepreneurs’ thinking ( Mitchell et al., 2007 ). In the 1970s, McClelland introduced the notions of success and role models. According to him, success stories inspire the public, show the way, and make you want to undertake more than school.

Many other researchers and entrepreneurs, on the other hand, see entrepreneurship as first and foremost a mindset and entrepreneurial behavior to change and innovate. The entrepreneur is above all a social being and therefore a committed person. This research is particularly interested in the experience and values of the entrepreneur, support, and funding mechanisms, as well as the connection between entrepreneurship and territorial development.

As a conclusion to this chapter, the positive interactions between MNEs and territorial development would include:

´ The anchoring of MNEs at the territorial level and the way it can favor the development of territories by creating added value and mobilizing specific non-transferable resources.

´ CSR questions the responsibility of the company with regards to the territory.

´ A territory that offers resources and know-how, financing possibilities, and connections between actors could help the development of entrepreneurship.

´ The geographical concentration of MNEs helps the development of entrepreneurship and the emergence of a network of local suppliers.

´ The coordination of actors and the existence of conditions conducive to the dissemination of knowledge.

For example, multinationals are developing public-private partnerships with governments, with local integration and employment objectives. These multinationals are engaging in processes to increase the volume of their purchases at the national level. The objective is to help local actors structure themselves, sustain their activity, and create quality jobs in the area where these MNEs are located. Thus, MNEs will allocate a specific budget to small local companies and set up processes adapted to the needs of local suppliers and small/very small companies around the industrial sites.

The economic performance of the Global Value Chain will depend on its various activities and functions. These contribute to this performance, which shifts the issue of the competitiveness of companies to the efficiency of value chains. These develop a global capacity to fragment production and coordinate it in a country’s offer. As a result, the performance of GVC and the dynamics of development depend on the ability of foreign and local actors (suppliers and subcontractors) to offer innovative services to multinational firms and to set up productions that differentiate them from competitors, either through the specificity of the intermediate good itself, or through the specificity of quality and/or through innovative design processes, production, marketing, and development.

In global economics, the popularity of the GVC concept is marked by the fragmentation of global production among several countries and companies. Thus, more and more countries are getting involved in GVC integration policies.

In these policies, the trend towards developing more integrated global groups and deep local integration is confirmed through a dynamic of mergers of companies and positioning of SMEs as service providers and sources of innovation proposals to GVC. This trend has fostered the global networking of multinationals, suppliers, and SMEs. In this perspective, clusters or technological innovation centers have become privileged tools of MNEs to promote adaptation, R&D, and innovation. The theoretical debate allows us to begin the analysis of the integration of the Moroccan economy into the Global Value Chains, where we are strongly interested in the competitiveness of GVC in Morocco, their adaptation, and the implementation of innovation to create integrative clusters.

In the context of globalization, multinational firms, which coordinate the activities and tasks of GVCs, are mainly targeted for their social, governance, and environmental impact. Economists and civil society note that these business networks create significant negative externalities in both social and environmental. Firms have therefore started a social turn and a green turn. However, these actions are now often considered social washing and greenwashing, leading to an intense criticism of the communication operations of multinational firms. There are massive contradictions between the CSR practices and policies of firms and their behaviors and strategies that led to the rise of mistrust and injustice feelings among various stakeholders of GVC: negative perception of GVC, high demand for jobs and integration of local SMEs, the difficulty of dialogue and communication with stakeholders, the low added value captured by developing countries, non-compliance with standards of rehousing of local populations, and environmental nuisances, etc. are among the biggest challenges.

As a result, CSR has become the main field of the struggle of actors to improve the private governance of GVC. For governance, several specialists suggested that actors, including social actors, find ways to take advantage of CSR and force change to change the business models of value chains towards models that allow the sustainability of activities and the active participation of all the driving forces of value chains. However, Gereffi and Meyer’s analyses demonstrate how leading companies have managed to shape the field where this struggle is taking place, mobilizing CSR to control risk and maintain control along the value chain CSR strives to absorb and disseminate social protest and political conflicts in this perspective.

In this complex and multidimensional integration process, there is no ready-made recipe for success. Still, good practices observed and reflections that should generate debate, it should not be imagined that Morocco’s participation in Global Value Chains will be what has been achieved in other Asian countries. Cultures are not the same, nor are ecosystems, resources, technologies, price structures, price structures, markets, etc. On the other hand, Morocco must have its own place by its environment and its African ambition.

In a country like Morocco, favoring employment and projects with a human dimension appears to be the best way, which does not exclude the use of new technologies and participation in sophisticated value chains. The gap between international and local actors should also be reduced. Local actors are poorly mobilized and have little capacity and impact along the value chain. GVC subcontractors have little ambition and fail to offer services or innovations to different industries. Sophisticated value chains are therefore not integrated, and markets are very short-term.

OCP Group is a major player in the territorial development of Khouribga. It bases its territorial action on industrial operations on the one hand, and social responsibility on the other, with social responsibility being a key driver for its territorial performance. The industrial activities of this MNE cover three provinces: Khouribga, Beni Mellal, and Fqih Bensaleh. These territories include 16 municipalities and bring together about 120.000 families (Figure 1).

The Beni Mellal-Khenifra region’s economy⁵ is based primarily on industry (Khouribga), agriculture (Beni Mellal & Fqih Bensaleh), and ecotourism (Azilal and Khenifra). The presence of structuring and infrastructure projects (Green Mine, the “1337 Coding School”, Agropole, Fertiparc, Geopark, highways, & railways) represents a significant regional investment (60% of the population is

under 35 years old). Let’s not forget immigration to Europe; Moroccans living abroad contribute substantially to the economic dynamics of the region through capital transfers and investments in important sectors in the area, such as real estate and services.

Since 2012, OCP group has embarked on a vast integrated investment program of CSR and development aid for the territory of Khouribga, which involves over 300 hecatres, through rural roads, youth centers, socio-educational centers, coding schools, libraries, health centers, an amusement and environmental park, leisure facilities, sports, and real estate all integrated into a tourist circuit, including the Khouribga mining museum.

Over the period 2012-2017, OCP Group’s contribution to the development of the Beni Mellal-Khenifra Region exceeded 2 billion dirhams, which were apportioned as follows:

´ 41.3% to develop basic infrastructure.

´ 20.7% for economic integration.

´ 38% to support the socio-cultural sectors (sports, health, education, and culture).

Nevertheless, the region remains marked by a high unemployment rate (24% in comparison to 16.2% in average) and a weak economic fabric, reinforcing the region’s dependence and reliance on OCP⁶.

The territory of Khouribga is facing the same classic issues of a mining city:

´ A concentration of local actors on the mine and the MNE.

´ A domestic economy offering very few economic prospects in terms of jobs⁷.

´ An embryonic economic fabric, unable to create any added value.

The region is also experiencing a rapid demographic dynamic. Its population in 2014 was around 193.372 inhabitants, compared to 166.397 in 2004. However, Khouribga remains marked by a very high unemployment rate: 26.7% in 2014 with a very strong gender difference with 20.8% for men and 45.1% for women. It also shows a low net activity rate for men, at 69.4% against 75% on average, and an even lower rate for women barely reaching 20.4%⁸.

The unemployment rate and the activity rate are higher than the national urban average, indicating two facts: the residents of Khouribga are willing to join the labor market, yet they cannot find a job. This phenomenon is explained by the weakness of the private sector, which only employs 34.9% of the active population, compared to 52.3% in the other cities of the kingdom⁹.

Consequently, public employment is over-represented, with 26.3% of the employed population compared to 10.2% on average elsewhere. The region’s dynamics are linked to the dynamics of the MNE, which is experiencing significant productivity gains, resulting in low job creation on the site of Khouribga while the city is experiencing strong demographic growth.

Entrepreneurship is a social choice by default¹⁰. Residents, particularly youth and women in rural areas, start an independent activity due to the lack of alternatives. Even with these living conditions, many young people hesitate to leave the city to go to work in Casablanca or Tangier. Their ambition is to secure a higher revenue (450 dollars per month) to cover the cost of living, especially the added cost of rent. Young people denounce the injustice created by these constraints and, as an alternative solution, aim to secure jobs at MNEs. Subcontracting projects are also very limited due to financial issues.

Porter’s concept of CSR aims to transform business-relevant social issues into business opportunities, in an attempt to help solve society’s major challenges, while generating greater profitability for business. OCP Group adheres to this approach and has successfully completed the stage of redefining and developing new products and markets along its global value chain. The business transformation process has improved its economic, social, and environmental adaptability and the integration of a growing number of stakeholders around the table.

It is necessary to maintain constructive efforts down this path, with new strategic linkages at the national and local level to integrate agricultural inputs, supply chains, and rare metals. The last step would be achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in the territories, through the establishment of new localized and innovative production sites, allowing small local entrepreneurs to manufacture parts and components and offer service innovations to MNEs.

The successful outcomes of the Skills Center¹¹ in its first years of implementation and the deep interest in identifying the needs of the populations of the province were behind the territorial diagnosis that was carried out in 2017 and 2018. The diagnosis covered numerous disadvantaged neighborhoods in the city of Khouribga and the rural municipalities of the province.

The targeted municipalities were: Hattane, Bir Mezoui, M’fassis, Bni Smir, Oulad Azouz, El Foqra, Boujniba, Boulanouare, and Oulad Abdoune. This diagnostic highlights several opportunities and strengths that youth integration policies should capitalize on as well as the various threats and weaknesses that could ruin the Skills Center’s work should they not be carefully taken into consideration.

Opportunities and strengths identified can be divided into several categories. As a result, in terms of infrastructure, some municipalities have technical and agricultural training centers, social infrastructures established by the OCP (clubs). These infrastructures were built to receive residents for training sessions, artistic and cultural activities, as well as institutional partners willing to implement territorial development projects.

The emergence of a new generation of influencers who believe in action and initiative, a high capacity for mobilization among women, and the financial commitment of families (particularly immigrants) in assisting their loved ones to launch their own projects are all indicators of human capital.

The study also reveals that associative and cooperative networks play an important role in some of the province’s municipalities. It also highlights the possibility of exploiting local resources such as cacti, local products as well as geological discoveries, all of which can help create value. It is vital to note that a relationship of trust has been established vis-à-vis the KSC and the services it offers.

The threats and weaknesses facing the region are linked particularly to the high rate of unemployment among youth and women (whether skilled or unskilled), the limited purchasing power of a large portion of the population, and the lack of diversification in the projects initiated in the region.

These negative elements are also linked to difficult natural conditions, a large influx of rural migrants, the return of many immigrants due to the crisis facing Europe and other issues such as beggary, drug use, and school dropout.

Other factors increase the vulnerability of this population, like the geographical scattering of residences in some municipalities, the unequal distribution and use of infrastructure, and Khouribga dependence on infrastructure and commercial activities.

In addition, there are several dysfunctions related to training structures, in particular:

´ Remote higher education

´ Inadequate curricula to the nature and needs of the region

´ Insufficient vocational training for women

´ Very low level of education of some social categories

´ Delayed implementation of certain support projects, such as Dar Taliba, a, launched five years ago but not yet completed (commune of Boujniba)

It should also be noted that some municipalities suffer from a shortage of artistic, cultural, and sports entertainment spaces, as well as services capable of integrating and empowering pensioners. Furthermore, there is a shortage— sometimes an absence—of training programs offered by KSC in municipalities such as Bir Mzoui, Bni Smir, El Foqra, and Oulad Abdoune. This is usually due to the lack of information about the KSC.

The SWOT table below is the result of a consultation workshop of local and non-local stakeholders organized by the Skills Center in March 2018. Today, the constraints outweigh the potential, but the opportunities are tangible due to the action of OCP, the National Human Development Initiative, and the growing dynamic carried by youth and women in the social and solidarity economy (Table 1).