# Dual Purpose Corporations and Boards Expertise - an Exploratory Study in *French*

## Société à Mission

**Jérémy LEVEQUE**, Center for Management Science (CGS), i3 UMR9217 CNRS, Mines Paris, PSL University, [jeremy.leveque@minesparis.psl.eu](mailto:jeremy.leveque@minesparis.psl.eu)

**Thomas ENJALBERT**, Center for Management Science (CGS), i3 UMR9217 CNRS, Mines Paris, PSL University, [thomas.enjalbert@minesparis.psl.eu](mailto:thomas.enjalbert@minesparis.psl.eu)

**Kevin LEVILLAIN**, Center for Management Science (CGS), i3 UMR9217 CNRS, Mines Paris, PSL University, [kevin.levillain@minesparis.psl.eu](mailto:kevin.levillain@minesparis.psl.eu)

**Blanche SEGRESTIN**, Center for Management Science (CGS), i3 UMR9217 CNRS, Mines Paris, PSL University, [blanche.segrestin@minesparis.psl.eu](mailto:blanche.segrestin@minesparis.psl.eu)

## ABSTRACT (331 words)

The rise of dual-purpose corporations reflects a growing need to align financial objectives with societal and environmental commitments. In this context, the French *sociétés à mission* offer an innovative governance model, characterized by a dual-board structure comprising a traditional board of directors (BoD) and an independent mission committee. This study investigates how competencies are distributed across these two entities.

Using a competency-based framework (Adams et al., 2018), we analyze a sample of 20 *sociétés à mission*, representing diverse sectors and sizes. Data collection involved reviewing mission committee reports, LinkedIn profiles, and corporate documents to map the expertise of 150 mission committee members and 226 directors.

The results reveal significant polarization in skillsets between governance bodies. Boards of directors predominantly possess generalist competencies, such as finance, management, and risk control, reflecting their focus on strategic coherence and operational oversight. In contrast, mission committees demonstrate strong specialization in sustainability and scientific expertise, with external members playing a crucial role in bridging knowledge gaps.
Interestingly, while these bodies exhibit distinct functional specializations, they also share common competencies in business acumen, enabling cross-functional dialogue on the interplay between profit and purpose.

This research contributes to corporate governance literature by critically engaging with the "common ground" hypothesis, which posits that homogeneous boards are more efficient. Our findings suggest that in dual-purpose corporations, a fragmented but complementary distribution of competencies across separate governance entities lay ground for new strategic decision-making process and ensures a balance between financial performance and societal goals.

The study's implications are both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, it refines existing frameworks on governance configurations in dual-purpose organizations, emphasizing the importance of external expertise in mission-driven oversight. Practically, it provides actionable insights for boards seeking to navigate the inherent tensions between profitability and purpose.

Future research might need to explore the evolution of dual-board structures over time and examine specific cases of tension management, particularly in contexts where financial and societal priorities diverge. Additionally, understanding how mission committee expertise directly impacts organizational outcomes will further enhance the governance of dual-purpose corporations.

**Keywords :** Corporate governance; dual-purpose corporations, Directors skills
# Dual purpose corporations and boards expertise - An exploratory study in *French
Société à Mission*

*(Words count : 7125 words)*

## Introduction

The challenges of transitions are reshaping traditional corporate paradigms. The resurgence of the concept of purpose (Besharov & Mitzinneck, 2023) reflects the growing tendency among leaders to extend corporate goals to include social and environmental concerns (Alhossini et al., 2021). These transformations raise questions about the ability of governance structures and board members to adapt to these changes, particularly by integrating these challenges into strategic decision-making processes (Durand, 2023).

In this context, an increasing number of companies are pursuing both financial and social objectives simultaneously (Battilana et al., 2022). These dual-purpose corporations now benefit from dedicated legal frameworks in different jurisdictions, such as the French *Sociétés à Mission* (Segrestin & Levillain, 2023; Ventura, 2023). This model relies on a significant governance innovation: a dual-board structure. Alongside the traditional board of directors, which now holds responsibility for overseeing the purpose, an independent, ad hoc mission committee is tasked with monitoring social and environmental commitments. This dual-board structure raises critical questions about the governance dynamics necessary to address the strategic challenges faced by dual-purpose corporations, as well as the competencies required of their members.

These issues are particularly pressing in light of the literature on board composition and competency representation, which has already highlighted two main tensions—exacerbated in the context of transitions (Aguilera, 2023; Schnatterly et al., 2021). The first tension relates to
balancing the diversification of board profiles with maintaining coherent decision-making capacity (Adams, 2017). The second concerns the articulation of competencies between visionary, purpose-driven strategies and operational risk-control functions (Shapira & Nili, 2023). These tensions, documented in traditional governance structures, pose even greater challenges for dual-board systems. This observation leads us to our research question: In a purpose-driven company with a dual-board structure, what competencies are necessary for governance boards, and how should these competencies be distributed across the two entities? To address this question, we study a panel of dual-purpose corporations—characterized by governance modifications and the adoption of a dual-board structure. Specifically, we focus on French Sociétés à Mission. Within this population, we aim to refine our understanding of how dual-board structures operate, particularly by mapping the competencies of members in the different governance bodies. For the main board (Board of directors – hereafter BoD), we examine director profiles to assess the balance between professional expertise of governance and specialized competencies that could be aligned with the purpose. For the mission committee, we analyze its composition to determine whether it comprises sustainability experts or members with a more strategic orientation. In both entities, special attention is paid to the role of external or independent members and the specific competencies they contribute. Methodologically, this study aims to precisely describe the composition of these bodies in terms of competencies, utilizing a competency framework widely referenced in board studies (Adams et al., 2018). Furthermore, we seek to compare the composition of the mission committee—dedicated to purpose oversight—with that of existing governance bodies and primarily the BoD. This work, still in progress, already advances several findings. Firstly, it provides an unprecedented access to the sociology of BoD and mission committees in French dual-purpose corporations (Sociétés à Mission), subject that, to our knowledge, has been little studied to date.
From the perspective of skills distribution in corporate governance, this study highlights that companies adopting a dual-purpose structure tend to show a high representation of governance generalist profiles. Conversely, BoDs exhibit a low distribution of specialized competencies related to the purpose (such as sustainability) and limited scientific representation. This suggests a functional specialization, signaling a gap in the Boards of Directors (BoDs) composition regarding the purpose. The study also reveals that outsiders directions are not specifically chosen to enhance purpose-related skills representation. Instead, they seem more aligned with fu, such as control and risk management.

On the other hand, the study of mission committees underscores the strong emphasis on sustainability and a significant “scientific” orientation, primarily brought by external members in these committees. Nonetheless, a cross-analysis of both entities also reveals a significant and comparable representation of generalist business competencies in the mission committees. These findings suggest that the mission committee is not limited to a strategic advisory role for the board on sustainability issues but also holds its own capacity to discuss the interplay between business and purpose.

This work contributes to the literature on boards by discussing the hypothesis of a "common ground," essential for effective decision-making within boards. It also engages with the body of work on dual-purpose corporations by exploring the governance mechanisms of dual-purpose entities.

The article is structured as follows: Drawing on published researchs on corporate governance, we elaborate on two main tensions related to board composition and directors selection in dual-purpose corporations. We then present the research methodology for a panel of dual-purpose corporations featuring dual-board governance structures. The study of their members and a comparative competency mapping yield a series of results that enable us to discuss the
corporate governance literature regarding the role of governance in deploying and managing a
dual-purpose strategy.

## Literature review - Composition of Governance Bodies in Dual-Purpose Corporations

The literature on boards of directors has primarily approached their study as collective entities, including their expertise (Chams & García-Blandón, 2019; Collevecchio & Gionfriddo, 2023; Schnatterly et al., 2021). However, recent research advocates for a more granular assessment of board competencies, including at the sub-committee and individual director levels (Velte, 2023; Hambrick et al., 2015). As debates on the multiplicity of corporate outcomes intensify, questions about the breadth and depth of competencies required for directorships grow more complex (Nicholson et al., 2012). This trend is reflected in the increasing use of competency matrices to reconfigure board knowledge bases (Lee & Phan, 2000; Shapira & Nili, 2023). This study leverages the literature on boards from a competency-based perspective, focusing on the composition of governance bodies in dual-purpose corporations.

*From monitors to advisors: arbitrating between the board's functional and strategic skills*

The composition of boards of directors in dual-purpose corporations, which simultaneously pursue financial and non-financial outcomes, raises unique questions for effective governance. Traditionally, directors play a complementary dual role (Hillman & Dalziel, 2003; Van Den Berghe & Levrau, 2004). On one hand, they oversee management's decisions to ensure the appropriate use of the company's resources. As supervisors, they evaluate and monitor the company's overall performance, ensuring the rigorous implementation of the dual-purpose strategy. On the other hand, directors are also tasked with serving as advisors to management (Chams & García-Blandón, 2019). As advisors, they provide cognitive and
strategic resources essential for navigating a complex and uncertain environment (Aguilera, 2023).

Directors in dual-purpose corporations must strike a balance between their supervisory and advisory roles (Bood et al., 2022). In this context, governance effectiveness relies heavily on the board's ability to align its strategic vision and structure its skills around these complex expectations.

From the perspective of skills, the control function overseeing management relates to functional aspects and primarily involves technical, analytical, and procedural governance skills necessary for monitoring executives and ensuring compliance with processes and objectives (Schnatterly et al., 2021). In contrast, the advisory function draws more on strategic knowledge, encompassing long-term vision, an understanding of industry trends, and the ability to influence the organization's overall direction, particularly in addressing new transitional challenges (Naciti, 2019; Naciti et al., 2022). Dass et al. (2014) also emphasize the importance of directors from related industries in helping management acquire sufficient information to operate in highly competitive markets. Research then highlights a key tension in board composition regarding the specific needs of a dual-purpose strategy and the board's complementary functions. First, a rigorous control function for monitoring overall performance—both financial and non-financial—relies on functional skills (Schnatterly et al., 2021; Shaukat & Trojanowski, 2018). But alternatively, an informational function, enabling visionary direction, fostering innovation, and pursuing long-term objectives, draws on more strategic skills (Dass et al., 2014; Gartenberg, 2022).

*Dual-purpose corporations call for new fields of expertise: balancing functional vs. strategic board competencies*
Governance in dual-purpose corporations is marked by specific tensions. By emphasizing the alignment of organizational actions with societal or environmental missions beyond mere profit-seeking, directors in dual-purpose corporations must continue to safeguard financial interests while ensuring that strategy adequately addresses new objectives tied to purpose (Victoravitch et al. 2023). According to Battilana et al. (2022), dual-purpose corporations face the ongoing challenge of mediating tensions between financial goals and purpose, requiring constant arbitration by directors.

Ultimately, it falls to the board to ensure that the inherent tensions between profitability and social or environmental sustainability do not result in decisions that overly favor one dimension at the expense of the other. This new dynamic necessitates diversified director profiles and encourages the integration of expertise tailored to these new sustainability challenges. However, this diversification can lead to difficulties in decision-making coherence and risk management (Adams et al., 2018; Schnatterly et al., 2021).

Indeed, numerous corporate governance studies highlight the importance of a "common ground" hypothesis for effective decision-making. This hypothesis posits that optimal strategic decision-making relies on a shared base of common and closely aligned skills. Boards with greater diversity in competencies are "not more effective" (Adams et al., 2018). A broader diversity of skills leads to increased complexity and thus inefficiency in decision-making—particularly by reducing the board's ability to control executives. This argument favors leaner and more homogeneous boards in terms of composition (Dass et al., 2014).

*Clarification of the research gap*

Regarding the appropriate qualifications for a board, and especially in relation to monitoring and advisory of a purpose-driven strategy, literature on corporate boards has highlighted two main tensions that remain enigmas for dual-purpose corporations:
* Tension 1: The balance between a visionary and strategic orientation (advisory towards purpose-driven) and a more operational risk control function. The role of monitoring the strategy to ensure the successful execution of a dual-purpose strategy vs providing cognitive resources and additional advice to address new challenges related to the management of a dual-purpose corporation, and the difficulty in mitigating tensions and risks.

* Tension 2: The balance between the boards' openness to diverse profiles and maintaining consistent decision-making capacity (Adams, 2018). The hypothesis of a common ground suggests that decision-making effectiveness relies on the homogeneity of the board members' skills, whereas the expansion of goals related to purpose and sustainability issues advocates for opening up to new "purpose-oriented" profiles and qualifications.

In light of our initial research question, namely, "In a purpose-driven company with a dual board, what skills are required within the governance boards, and how should they be distributed between the two structures?", the examination of the literature helps clarify several sub-questions. First, which key skills are integrated within the main Board ? Should they be specialized or broadened to include issues related to purpose? And secondly, what is the nature of the skills expected within the mission committee? Do they relate to strategic or functional expertise?

By addressing these questions, this study aims to explore how the skills of boards in a dual structure can effectively contribute to the governance of dual-purpose companies."

# Research methodology

## *Sample description*
To address our research question, we focus on dual-purpose corporations, which are defined
by a modification of governance – *sociétés à mission*. This legal possibility has been available
under French law since 2019 (Segrestin et al., 2021), allowing any company, regardless of its
legal form, to define and commit to a freely chosen mission by incorporating it into its articles
of association. In an innovative and original manner, the status of a *société à mission* also
provides for a governance mechanism dedicated to overseeing the social and environmental
commitments outlined in the mission. Specifically, alongside the traditional board, the
establishment of an ad hoc body, the mission committee, is required. This body, which lacks
decision-making power, operates independently of the main board and is solely responsible
for overseeing the mission. It is freely composed and submits an annual report to the
shareholders. Thus, the *société à mission* creates a dual board structure at the governance
level in line with its dual-purpose nature. As of the end of 2023, the observation of *sociétés à
mission* recorded 1,490 companies of this type registered with the French commercial courts.

To form our panel, we begin with these 1,490 companies and narrow the scope to those with a
sufficient history, as deemed by the authors, to ensure that the governance level addresses the
requirements associated with adopting the legal status of a *société à mission*, particularly the
existence of a functional mission committee. This history was set at two years for this study,
as this period marks the point by which the mission committee should have published at least
one mission report. Given that the legal form is relatively recent and that reporting is not
mandatory for non-listed companies, this initial filter reduces the sample to 130 companies for
which the authors were able to access at least one mission committee report, thereby also
gaining access to the identities of the mission committee members. The overall tally within
this panel of 130 companies led to the identification of 910 mission committee members (848
of whom are unique).

Finally, one last restriction is applied in this study, namely, limiting the sample to public
limited companies with a board of directors (or equivalent). This results in a final panel of 20 companies. This sample includes companies from various sectors and sizes, thus capturing a diversity of configurations (Annex B). Ultimately, the studied panel comprises 150 mission committee members and 226 board members.

Data analysis – comparaison des organes de gouvernance via des matrices de compétences

With the support of a skills framework derived from the literature (Adams et al., 2018), we propose to refine our understanding of the composition of these dual-boards. More specifically, Adams et al. (2018) rely on an inventory of 20 key skills for directors, as well as a dictionary of keywords associated with each of these skills – in order to ensure coding consistency (Appendix A). These skills relate both to functional competencies (management, finance, legal, etc.) and more strategic ones, addressing issues specific to the purpose (sustainability, science, etc.). Using this classification, we explore the following dimensions/ Within the board of directors, we examine the profiles of directors to assess the balance between generalist expertise (finance, management) and specific skills (sustainability, sciences). Within the mission committees, we analyze the composition of its members to determine whether mission committees are composed of external experts or members with a strategic orientation.

The skills matrices, initially designed for boards of directors, are used here to compare the competencies of directors with those of mission committee members. The analysis grid from the work of Adams et al. (2018) has been adopted and slightly adapted to include possible specificities related to mission committees. Indeed, among the 20 initial skills (Table 1), two have been replaced ("compensation" by "human resources," and "leadership" by
"communication"), and two have been added ("nonprofit"<fnref n="1" /> and "member of a mission committee"). Consequently, the final skill nomenclature includes 22 skills (Table 1). Typically, the use of a skills matrix also requires evaluating the level of expertise in each area considered. In the context of our research, we limit ourselves to identifying the presence or absence of a skill, the goal being to focus primarily on the diversity of backgrounds between directors and mission committee members.

We assigned a research assistant to read the descriptions of directors in our data and to code skills for each director. To ensure consistency, the same person coded all directors' skills, and these were verified randomly. The LinkedIn profiles of mission committee members and directors were analyzed, supplemented by committee reports when possible. The skills are coded according to specific criteria, for example:

* "Company Business" for professional experience in the sector : suppliers for instances.

* "Legal" for legal training or experience.

* "External executives" for any executive role in a company, and "Entrepreneur" for company founders.

* "Management" for leadership roles.

* "Scientific" for anyone working in a research organization or holding a doctorate.
* "Academic" for individuals holding a professor rank, assistant professor, or equivalent in a higher education institution.

Finally, the skills related to "Sustainability" encompass all competencies that may be linked to the monitoring of the mission. Given the freedom each company has to formulate its mission,

<footnote n="1">¹ Adams et al (2018) refers to the skill “non-profit” but the authors excluded it from the analysis due to its low distribution among directors. We choose to include it here on the assumption that it is much more common among mission committee members.</footnote>
it is possible for some missions to have no direct connection to environmental sustainability in
the strict sense. To address this issue and for simplicity's sake, all skills linked to a broader
sustainability issue have been accepted. This includes, for example, a specialist in inequality
or someone working specifically on CSR topics within a company. Finally, the classifications
are exclusive to avoid redundancy<fnref n="2" />.

Based on these rules, we reconstitute the profile of 150 mission committee members, which
we propose to compare with that of the 226 directors who make up the panel of companies
studied. Finally, we distinguish the contribution of each member's skills to their respective
boards, depending on whether or not they are external to the company. Ultimately, this
analysis enables us to map the skills represented on the governance bodies of mission-driven
companies, in order to understand any possible polarization of expertise.

Insert Table 1 about here

Results

Statistical Description of Governance Bodies – Mission Committees and Boards

<footnote n="2">² For instance, a former executive remains classified as such, even if he or she is now an employee.</footnote>
Within the 130 *sociétés à mission* analyzed, the average profile of a mission committee consists of 6.9 members, with 50% being external members to the company, meaning they have no contract (commercial or employment) with the organization they serve on as committee members, and 46% are women. This average configuration, however, does not reflect a wide variety of configurations at a more detailed level. Indeed, mission committees range from 1 to 18 members. At the inter-organizational level, it is worth noting the cross-participation between several committees. Specifically, 36% of committees (48 out of 130) have one of their members sitting in at least one other mission committee. Thus, the total population of 901 mission committee members ultimately consists of 848 unique individuals (See Table 2).

Insert Table 2 about here

If we focus solely on *sociétés à mission* with a board of directors, the composition of the committee is slightly different. These 20 committees gather 157 members, with a slightly higher average of 7.85 members per committee – almost one more than the previous average. The representation of external members is stronger, exceeding 6 out of 10 members. The proportion of women, however, remains stable at 48% (Table 3)

Insert Table 3 about here

In comparison, within the same sample, the analyzed boards of directors consist of 226 members. On average, these are larger committees than mission committees (+3.47 members). The proportion of external members is also higher by 19 percentage points (81%
external individuals). Finally, the proportion of women is very similar to that observed within
mission committees, with an average of 42% of women sitting on the board of directors.

Insert Table 4 about here

## *Skills Mapping within the mission committees*

The coding of skills within the mission committees leads to the following results (Figure 1 – Table 5). All of the analyzed mission committees have members with sustainability-related skills. In total, 67% of the coded sample was associated with a "Sustainability" skill. This is the most widespread skill. Other purpose-related expertise, such as "non-profit" and "scientific and academic," are also well represented, with 33% of mission committee members having experience in a non-profit organization, and 20% having an academic or scientific background. On the opposite end of the spectrum, few members possess skills in law or risk management, particularly related to governance monitoring. Approximately one in three committees includes members with this expertise.

Insert Table 5 and/or Figure 1 about here

Furthermore, the analysis of skills indicates a particular mastery of business-related issues by mission committees. Indeed, the skill "Company Business " is the second most represented. It is held by 68% of the analyzed mission committee members. Moreover, 24% have current or past experience as a director, and a similar proportion has current or past experience as an executive.

Among the 22 skills, three are represented in all committees of our sample. In addition to the
"Company Business" skill, which is particularly linked to the mandatory presence of a company employee within the mission committee, the skills "Sustainability" and "Management" are systematically coded. Finally, in nearly 85% of the analyzed mission committees, the "Director" skill is held by at least one member, with 50% for the "Scientific" skill.

A look at this distribution of skills, according to the division between internal and external members, highlights the particular role of outsiders. Indeed, they account for nearly 8 out of 10 who hold the "Sustainability" skill, compared to only 43% of internal members. Similarly, the skill "Experience in a non-profit organization" is present in 44% of external members, compared to only 13% of internal members. Conversely, the most significant gap in favor of internal members is in the "Management" skill, held by 63% of internal members and 25% of external members. This observation might be partly explained by the fact that many internal mission committee members are employees with managerial or executive responsibilities within their companies<fnref n="3" />. In conclusion, the skills matrix for mission committees shows a broad distribution of competencies covering the full spectrum.

While the analysis highlights a significant presence of competencies related to purpose (e.g., sustainability and a strong "scientific" focus), it also signals a solid cognitive foundation in business and industrial expertises.

## Skills Mapping within the Board of Directors

A similar analysis for directors leads to the following results (Figure 2 – Table 6). Within the board of directors, the "Company business" skill remains the most represented, with 65% of directors holding it, despite the lower proportion of internal members sitting on the board.

<footnote n="3">³ he French legal framework does not lay down any particular requirements regarding the size of the mission committee. The law only specifies that it must include at least one employee.</footnote>
Next is the "External executives" skill, present in 59% of members, followed by the "Finance and accounting" skill, represented by 46% of directors. The board's control function is represented by a greater weight of functional skills, such as finance and accounting (95% of coded boards), legal, and risk management (75% and 70% of coded committees, respectively). The complementary advisory role of the board is supported by solid skills in technology (16% of total members), strategy (40%), or significant international exposure (28%).

However, despite a larger pool of directors on average compared to mission committees, certain competencies, particularly related to purpose, are less represented. Only 26% of directors can be associated with a sustainability skill (compared to 67% in mission committees). Consequently, in 10% of the sociétés à mission coded, we were unable to identify this skill at the board level. Additionally, only 6% of directors are "Scientific" or "Academic" members.

Finally, it is worth noting that external members do not, as with the mission committee, enhance these competencies at the board level (with similar proportions between internal and external members). Instead, external members are more likely to provide an international dimension or strengthen the board's professional expertise through directors who sit – or have previously sat – on other companies' boards.

In summary, the distribution of skills makes visible the dual control function of the board, as identified in the literature, but shows a weaker coverage of purpose-related skills within the board compared to its counterpart, the mission committee. External members play a notably different role here by enhancing the general professional expertise of boards, to the detriment of the contribution of specialized directors, particularly in transition-related issues.
Insert Table 6 and/or Figure 2 about here

*Cross-viewpoints between the two governance bodies*

In this section, we directly compare the governance bodies pairwise, at the level of each of the 20 companies in the sample. We first examine the coverage of skills, then the complementarities between each body, and finally, the distribution of skills.

In terms of skill coverage, meaning the representation of a skill by at least one member of the relevant body, the mission committee and the board of directors are relatively similar, with 73% of "business" skills covered solely by the board of directors and 64% by the mission committee. In 4 *sociétés à mission* in our sample, there is no difference in this coverage; in some cases, the mission committee even covers a broader range of skills than the board of directors. In absolute terms, the gap between the board of directors and the mission committee is only 15%, with a maximum of 40% in favor of the board of directors and 30% in favor of the mission committee (Figure 3).

Insert figure 3 about here

Examining the overlaps of skills between each governance body, we observe that, for 5 of the 20 *sociétés à mission* in our sample, the "Scientific" skill is represented exclusively within the mission committee. Similarly, in 2 companies, the "Sustainability" skill is represented exclusively within this committee. The difference is much more pronounced for the skills represented solely within the board of directors. Indeed, in 12 of the analyzed companies, the "Technology" skill is exclusively represented within the board of directors. This finding is
similar for the "Strategy" skill in 9 cases, and for the "Risk Management," "Legal," and
"Industry" skills in 8 cases.

Insert figure 4 about here

At the level of the members of each body, the distribution of skills confirms this result. Indeed, by comparing the proportion of each skill within the board of directors to the proportion within each governance body, we observe even greater disparities between the mission committee and the board of directors. First, skills related to "Technology" are held by 30% more directors than mission committee members. This proportion rises to 19% for the "Strategy" skill and 24% for "External Executives." As for the members of the mission committee, skills related to "Sustainability" are 23% more frequent than among directors, as is the "Entrepreneurship" skill. The greatest disparity is found with the "Scientific" skill, where the percentage is around 35%.

Insert figure 5 about here

Discussion

This study offers an in-depth exploration of the dual-board structure in French sociétés à mission, highlighting how governance mechanisms are deployed to the specifics requirement of governing a dual-purpose corporation. By mapping the competencies of members across boards, the research contributes to the understanding of governance configurations that balance financial oversight and purpose-driven strategic guidance. This extends the existing literature in corporate governance by empirically validating the distinct roles and expertise
required for each of those boards, thereby refining theoretical frameworks on dual-purpose
governance (e.g., Battilana et al., 2022). In particular, a key theoretical contribution of this
research lies in its critical engagement with the hypothesis of a "common ground" in board
composition (Adams et al. 2018). This hypothesis posits that boards with a narrower and more
homogeneous set of skills achieve greater decision-making efficiency, as a shared knowledge
base facilitates quicker consensus. However, our findings challenge this assumption in the
context of dual-purpose corporations. The study reveals that while traditional boards of
directors prioritize coherence through a concentration of generalist business and financial
expertise, the integration of diverse competencies—such as sustainability and scientific
knowledge—within mission committees broadens the cognitive repertoire of the governance
structure. This duality suggests that a fragmented "common ground" across separate
governance bodies can enable organizations to address complex, multidimensional goals
without compromising decision-making consistency. Specifically, the presence of external
experts with specialized knowledge in mission committees could compensates for the lack of
such expertise in traditional boards, creating a distributed model of decision-making. But
while we might have expected a strong functional specialization between the two bodies -
profit for one, purpose for the other - what this work shows is that the mission committee
positions its expertise the interface between purpose and profit, as shown by its solid
"business" expertises. Clearly, this is not an in abstracto control, but an evaluation of
management choices, based on a keen understanding of the business and its constraints.

**Conclusion and perspectives**

This research offers an in-depth exploration of governance in dual-purpose corporations by
analyzing the composition and role distribution of dual-board structures in French *sociétés à
mission*. The findings highlight the nuanced interplay between boards of directors and mission
committees, shedding light on their distinct contributions and complementarities. First, the study reveals a polarization of skills between the two governance bodies. Boards of directors concentrate primarily on generalist competencies, such as management, finance, and risk control, reflecting their focus on oversight and strategic coherence. Conversely, mission committees exhibit a strong specialization in purpose-related expertise, notably in sustainability and scientific knowledge. This specialization underscores their role in addressing societal and environmental objectives. Then, the critical role of external members within mission committees becomes evident. These individuals bring unique expertise in sustainability and sciences, compensating for the lack of such competencies on the boards of directors. Their contributions enrich the mission committees' ability to bridge the gap between purpose and profit, while highlighting the value of external perspectives in enhancing governance diversity and effectiveness. Finally, the study suggests how the interaction between boards of directors and mission committees creates a complementary governance framework. While each body operates within its specialized domain and keep a distinct "common ground", their combined efforts ensure a broader skill coverage. This complementarity facilitates the effective management of tensions between financial performance and societal goals, while maintaining strategic alignment within the organization.

These findings advance the theoretical understanding of governance in dual-purpose corporations by validating the distinct roles and interactions of mission committees and boards of directors. Future research should explore how these dual-board structures evolve over time, particularly in response to shifts in organizational priorities and external pressures. Furthermore, specific case studies are needed to examine how tensions between profit and purpose are managed within these governance frameworks. Clarifying the practical application of mission committee competencies, in relation to purpose content will also be essential to ensure the effective monitoring and realization of corporate purpose.
By providing empirical evidence of the complementary dynamics within dual-purpose corporations, this research lays a foundation for rethinking governance strategies in organizations striving to balance financial imperatives with societal impact.

## Bibliography

Adams, R. B., Akyol, A. C., & Verwijmeren, P. (2018). Director skill sets. *Journal of Financial Economics, 130*(3), 641–662.

Aguilera, R. V. (2023). Corporate Purpose in Comparative Perspective: The Role of Governance. *Strategy Science, 8*(2), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0198

Alhossini, M. A., Ntim, C. G., & Zalata, A. M. (2021). Corporate Board Committees and Corporate Outcomes: An International Systematic Literature Review and Agenda for Future Research. *The International Journal of Accounting, 56*(01), 2150001. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1094406021500013

Battilana, J., Obloj, T., Pache, A.-C., & Sengul, M. (2022). Beyond Shareholder Value Maximization: Accounting for Financial/Social Trade-Offs in Dual-Purpose Companies. *Academy of Management Review, 47*(2), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0386

Besharov, M., & Mitzinneck, B. (2023). The Multiple Facets of Corporate Purpose: An Analytical Typology. *Strategy Science, 8*(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0186

Bood, R., van Ees, H., & Postma, T. (2022). *The Role of the Board in Corporate Purpose and Strategy*. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/role-of-the-board-in-corporate-purpose-and-strategy/5A5445FB3FDD4643E6EF303AF35451F5
Chams, N., & García-Blandón, J. (2019). Sustainable or not sustainable? The role of the board of directors. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 226, 1067–1081.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.118

Collevecchio, F., & Gionfriddo, G. (2023). Adopting a social purpose in for-profit firms: The role of the board of directors. *International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal*, 19(3), 1467–1499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-023-00879-w

Dass, N., Kini, O., Nanda, V., Onal, B., & Wang, J. (2014). Board Expertise: Do Directors from Related Industries Help Bridge the Information Gap? *Review of Financial Studies*, 27(5), 1533–1592. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hht071

Durand, R. (2023). From the Boardroom: Making Purpose Research Relevant for Practice.
*Strategy Science*, 8(2), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0182

Gartenberg, C. (2022). Purpose-driven companies and sustainability. In *Handbook on the Business of Sustainability* (pp. 24–42). Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781839105340/book-part-9781839105340-9.xml

Hambrick, D. C., Misangyi, V. F., & Park, C. A. (2015). The quad model for identifying a corporate director's potential for effective monitoring: Toward a new theory of board sufficiency. *Academy of Management Review*, 40(3), 323–344.

Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of Directors and Firm Performance: Integrating Agency and Resource Dependence Perspectives. *Academy of Management Review*, 28(3), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196729

Lee, S., & Phan, P. (2000). Competencies of Directors in Global Firms: Requirements for recruitment and evaluation. *Corporate Governance: An International Review*, 8(3), 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00199
Naciti, V. (2019). Corporate governance and board of directors: The effect of a board composition on firm sustainability performance. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 237, 117727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117727

Naciti, V., Cesaroni, F., & Pulejo, L. (2022). Corporate governance and sustainability: A review of the existing literature. *Journal of Management and Governance*, 26(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-020-09554-6

Nicholson, G., Kiel, G., & Tunny, J. A. (2012). Board evaluations: Contemporary thinking and practice. *THE SAGE Handbook of Corporate Governance*, 285–324.

Schnatterly, K., Calvano, F., Berns, J. P., & Deng, C. (2021). The effects of board expertise- risk misalignment and subsequent strategic board reconfiguration on firm performance. *Strategic Management Journal*, 42(11), 2162–2191.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3291

Segrestin, B., Hatchuel, A., & Levillain, K. (2021). When the law distinguishes between the enterprise and the corporation: The case of the new French law on corporate purpose. *Journal of Business Ethics*, 171(1), 1–13.

Segrestin, B., & Levillain, K. (2023). Profit- with- purpose corporations: Why purpose needs law and why it matters for management. *European Management Review*, 20(4), 733–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12628

Shapira, R., & Nili, Y. (2023). *Specialist Directors* (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 4648018).
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4648018

Shaukat, A., & Trojanowski, G. (2018). Board governance and corporate performance.
*Journal of Business Finance & Accounting*, 45(1–2), 184–208.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12271
Van Den Berghe, L. A. A., & Levrau, A. (2004). Evaluating Boards of Directors: What constitutes a good corporate board? *Corporate Governance: An International Review*, 12(4), 461–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2004.00387.x

Victoravich, L. M., Hamilton, A. L., Kim, S. S., & Cohen, N. A. (2023). Reflections on the roles of governance and leadership in profit-for-purpose companies: A European–United States comparative perspective. *European Management Journal*, 41(3), 337–344.

Velte, P. (2023). Does sustainable board governance drive corporate social responsibility? A structured literature review on European archival research. *Journal of Global Responsibility*, 14(1), 46–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-05-2022-0044

Ventura, L. (2023). Corporate purposes and the law. New trends in legal frameworks for purpose-driven companies—The European way(s). *European Management Review*, *n/a*(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12627
Tables and figures

<table><caption>Table 1: skill categories (inspired from Adams et al. 2018)</caption><thead><tr><td>Variables</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Academic</td><td>The director is from academia or has a higher degree (such as a Ph.D.).</td></tr><tr><td>Company business</td><td>The director is experienced in the firm's business or industry (or a closely related industry).</td></tr><tr><td>Communication</td><td>The director has communication experience.</td></tr><tr><td>Entrepreneurial</td><td>The director has entrepreneurial experience.</td></tr><tr><td>Finance and accounting</td><td>The director has experience in banking, finance, accounting, or economics related activities.</td></tr><tr><td>Governance</td><td>The director has corporate governance experience.</td></tr><tr><td>Government and policy</td><td>The director has governmental, policy, or regulatory experience.</td></tr><tr><td>Human resources</td><td>The director is someone with prior HR experience.</td></tr><tr><td>International</td><td>The director has international experience.</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>The director has legal expertise.</td></tr><tr><td>Management</td><td>The director has management and communications skills/experience.</td></tr><tr><td>Manufacturing</td><td>The director has manufacturing experience.</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing</td><td>The director has marketing and sales skills/experience or knowledgeable in marketing activities.</td></tr><tr><td>Mission committee</td><td>The director has outside mission committee experience</td></tr><tr><td>Non profit</td><td>The director has prior experience in a non for profit organization</td></tr><tr><td>Outside board</td><td>The director has outside board experience.</td></tr><tr><td>Outside executive</td><td>The director is an executive of another company.</td></tr><tr><td>Risk management</td><td>The director has risk management experience.</td></tr><tr><td>Scientific</td><td>The director has engineering, scientific, or research & development (R&D) skills/experience.</td></tr><tr><td>Strategic planning</td><td>The director is someone that has strategy skills or strategy planning experience.</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainability</td><td>The director has experience in environmental and sustainability issues.</td></tr><tr><td>Technology</td><td>The director has technology skills/experience.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>Table 2: descriptive statistics for mission committees (n₁=130)</caption>
<table><caption>Table 3: descriptive statistics for mission committees (n<sub>2</sub>=20)</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Mean</th><th>Median</th><th>SD</th><th>Min value</th><th>Max value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Full-time employees</td><td>2457</td><td>71</td><td>11401</td><td>-</td><td>100000</td></tr><tr><td>Mission committee size</td><td>6,93</td><td>7</td><td>2,90</td><td>1</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Outside members (%)</td><td>0,50</td><td>0,57</td><td>0,29</td><td>-</td><td>0,90</td></tr><tr><td>Female members (%)</td><td>0,46</td><td>0,44</td><td>0,21</td><td>-</td><td>1,00</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 4: descriptive statistics for Boards of directors (n<sub>2</sub>=20)</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Mean</th><th>Median</th><th>SD</th><th>Min value</th><th>Max value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Full-time employees</td><td>8571</td><td>572</td><td>23127</td><td>60</td><td>100000</td></tr><tr><td>Mission committee size</td><td>7,85</td><td>7,50</td><td>2,85</td><td>4</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Outside members (%)</td><td>0,62</td><td>0,67</td><td>0,21</td><td>0,17</td><td>0,88</td></tr><tr><td>Female members (%)</td><td>0,48</td><td>0,47</td><td>0,11</td><td>0,25</td><td>0,67</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Figure 1. Distribution of skills across the mission committees</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Mean</th><th>Median</th><th>SD</th><th>Min value</th><th>Max value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Board size</td><td>11,32<br>(+3,47)</td><td>11<br>(+3,5)</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Outside members ()</td><td>0,81<br>(+0,19)</td><td>0,86<br>(+0,19)</td><td>0,24</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Female members (%)</td><td>0,42<br>(-0,06)</td><td>0,41<br>(-0,06)</td><td>0,16</td><td>-</td><td>0,67</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Table 5 : Distribution of skills across the mission committees</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Skills</th><th>At mission committee level</th><th>At individual level</th><th>Internal members</th><th>External members</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Company business</td><td>1,00</td><td>0,68</td><td>1,00</td><td>0,54</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainability</td><td>1,00</td><td>0,67</td><td>0,44</td><td>0,79</td></tr><tr><td>Management</td><td>1,00</td><td>0,38</td><td>0,63</td><td>0,25</td></tr><tr><td>Non profit</td><td>0,95</td><td>0,33</td><td>0,13</td><td>0,44</td></tr><tr><td>International</td><td>0,95</td><td>0,38</td><td>0,37</td><td>0,38</td></tr><tr><td>Finance and accounting</td><td>0,90</td><td>0,31</td><td>0,30</td><td>0,32</td></tr><tr><td>Outside board</td><td>0,85</td><td>0,24</td><td>0,20</td><td>0,25</td></tr><tr><td>Outside executive</td><td>0,80</td><td>0,20</td><td>0,11</td><td>0,25</td></tr><tr><td>Government and policy</td><td>0,75</td><td>0,28</td><td>0,17</td><td>0,33</td></tr><tr><td>Academic</td><td>0,65</td><td>0,21</td><td>0,09</td><td>0,26</td></tr><tr><td>Communication</td><td>0,65</td><td>0,13</td><td>0,13</td><td>0,14</td></tr><tr><td>Entrepreneurial</td><td>0,65</td><td>0,20</td><td>0,04</td><td>0,28</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing</td><td>0,60</td><td>0,10</td><td>0,15</td><td>0,07</td></tr><tr><td>Strategy</td><td>0,55</td><td>0,18</td><td>0,19</td><td>0,18</td></tr><tr><td>Mission committee</td><td>0,50</td><td>0,10</td><td>0,02</td><td>0,14</td></tr><tr><td>Scientific</td><td>0,50</td><td>0,15</td><td>0,07</td><td>0,20</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>0,40</td><td>0,08</td><td>0,11</td><td>0,07</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Figure 2: Distribution of skills across the boards of directors</caption><tr><td>Governance</td><td>0,35</td><td>0,06</td><td>0,04</td><td>0,08</td></tr><tr><td>Manufacturing</td><td>0,35</td><td>0,08</td><td>0,07</td><td>0,08</td></tr><tr><td>Human resources</td><td>0,35</td><td>0,06</td><td>0,09</td><td>0,04</td></tr><tr><td>Risk Management</td><td>0,30</td><td>0,06</td><td>0,07</td><td>0,06</td></tr><tr><td>Technology</td><td>0,25</td><td>0,04</td><td>0,02</td><td>0,05</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Table 6: Distribution of skills across the boards of directors</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Skills</th><th>At board level</th><th>At level</th><th>director</th><th>Internal members</th><th>External members</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Company business</td><td>1,00</td><td>0,65</td><td></td><td>1,00</td><td>0,58</td></tr><tr><td>Outside executive</td><td>1,00</td><td>0,59</td><td></td><td>0,87</td><td>0,53</td></tr><tr><td>Finance and accounting</td><td>0,95</td><td>0,46</td><td></td><td>0,42</td><td>0,47</td></tr><tr><td>Strategy</td><td>1,00</td><td>0,40</td><td></td><td>0,50</td><td>0,39</td></tr><tr><td>Management</td><td>0,95</td><td>0,37</td><td></td><td>0,47</td><td>0,35</td></tr><tr><td>Non profit</td><td>0,90</td><td>0,28</td><td></td><td>0,26</td><td>0,29</td></tr><tr><td>International</td><td>0,85</td><td>0,28</td><td></td><td>0,16</td><td>0,30</td></tr><tr><td>Outside board</td><td>0,85</td><td>0,26</td><td></td><td>0,16</td><td>0,28</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainability</td><td>0,90</td><td>0,25</td><td></td><td>0,24</td><td>0,25</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Figure 3 business skills coverage in the dual boards structure.</caption><tr><td>Government and policy</td><td>0,55</td><td>0,20</td><td>0,08</td><td>0,22</td></tr><tr><td>Manufacturing</td><td>0,75</td><td>0,18</td><td>0,26</td><td>0,16</td></tr><tr><td>Technology</td><td>0,85</td><td>0,16</td><td>0,08</td><td>0,17</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>0,80</td><td>0,13</td><td>0,16</td><td>0,13</td></tr><tr><td>Risk Management</td><td>0,70</td><td>0,12</td><td>0,11</td><td>0,13</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing</td><td>0,80</td><td>0,12</td><td>0,24</td><td>0,10</td></tr><tr><td>Communication</td><td>0,75</td><td>0,09</td><td>0,11</td><td>0,09</td></tr><tr><td>Human resources</td><td>0,45</td><td>0,08</td><td>0,08</td><td>0,08</td></tr><tr><td>Entrepreneurial</td><td>0,50</td><td>0,07</td><td>0,08</td><td>0,07</td></tr><tr><td>Academic</td><td>0,45</td><td>0,06</td><td>0,03</td><td>0,06</td></tr><tr><td>Governance</td><td>0,30</td><td>0,04</td><td>0,03</td><td>0,05</td></tr><tr><td>Mission committee</td><td>0,30</td><td>0,03</td><td>0,03</td><td>0,03</td></tr><tr><td>Scientific</td><td>0,25</td><td>0,03</td><td>-</td><td>0,03</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Legend : Thanks to the expertise of its members, the BoD of Crédit Mutuelle Arkéa can draw on the full range of business skills in the nomenclature. Conversely, only 70% of the business skills are covered in the mission committee of this very same company.

<caption>Figure 4 overrepresentation of skills in the dual boards structure.</caption>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Legend : the “Legal” skill was coded exclusively in 8 boards. ie. Among the 20 mission-coded companies, the “Legal” skill is found in 8 more BoDs than mission committees.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Ratio of skills represented on the BoD versus representation on the two governance bodies</figcaption></figure>

# Appendix

## A. Skills dictionary (from Adams et al. 2018)

<table><thead><tr><td>Skills</td><td>Keywords and phrases</td></tr></thead></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Skills</td><td>Keywords and phrases</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Academic</td><td>Academia, academic, dean, doctorate, education, faculty, graduate, masters, Ph.D., Ph.D., professor, school environment</td></tr><tr><td>Company business</td><td>All aspects of our industry, chief executive officer of our, chief executive officer of the company, company's business, executive of our, executive of the company, experience with the company, historical insight, historical knowledge, history of the operation, history with our company, in-depth knowledge of, industry-specific perspective, industry experience, industry knowledge, inner workings, insider's perspective, internal operation, knowledge of all aspects of the company, knowledge of the, knowledge of the history, officer of our, officer of the company, president of our, president of the company, the company's chief, understanding of our business, working with the company</td></tr><tr><td>Compensation</td><td>Compensation</td></tr><tr><td>Entrepreneurial</td><td>Entrepreneur, entrepreneurial, entrepreneurship, evaluating business, innovative idea</td></tr><tr><td>Finance and accounting</td><td>Accountant, accounting and, accounting experience, accounting principles, and accounting, auditing, banking, capital markets, capital structure, corporate finance, experience in accounting, experience in finance, expertise in finance, finance experience, finance industry, finance matters, financial accounting, financial acumen, financial background, financial experience, financial expert, financial expertise, financial field, financial foundation, financial management, financial matters, financial reporting, financial services, investment, securities, understanding of finance</td></tr><tr><td>Governance</td><td>Governance</td></tr><tr><td>Government and policy</td><td>Government, policy, politics, regulatory</td></tr><tr><td>International</td><td>Global, international, multinational, worldwide</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>Leadership</td></tr><tr><td>Legal</td><td>Attorney, lawyer, legal</td></tr><tr><td>Management</td><td>Experience in leading, experience in managing, management</td></tr><tr><td>Manufacturing</td><td>Industrial, manufactured, manufacturing</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing</td><td>Marketing</td></tr><tr><td>Outside board</td><td>Board experience, board of other, board practices of other, boards of companies, boards of other, boards of several other, boards of various, director of other, director of several other, member of the board of, numerous boards, on the boards of, other company boards, prior service as a director, several corporate boards, several other corporate boards, varied boards</td></tr><tr><td>Outside executive</td><td>As the chairman of a, business career, chief executive officer of a, executive experience, experience as a chief, experience as an executive</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Skills</th><th>Keywords and phrases</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>officer of, experience as a senior, former executive of a, officer of a public, officer of other, officer of several companies, officer of numerous companies, president of a, senior-level executive, senior executive, senior management positions, serving as the CEO of a</td></tr><tr><td>Risk management</td><td>Risk</td></tr><tr><td>Scientific</td><td>Research and development, scientific expertise</td></tr><tr><td>Strategic planning</td><td>Business planning, decision-making, problem-solving, strategic, strategies</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainability</td><td>Environmental, safety, sustainability, sustainable</td></tr><tr><td>Technology</td><td>Technological, technology</td></tr></tbody></table>

## B. Companies of the panel (n₂=20)

<table><thead><tr><th>Name</th><th>Brief description</th><th>Total workforce (2023)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Aigle</td><td>Footwear and textile company founded in 1853</td><td>1400</td></tr><tr><td>Citeo</td><td>Recycling of household packaging and graphic paper</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>Crédit Mutuel Arkéa</td><td>Cooperative and mutual bank-insurance group</td><td>11400</td></tr><tr><td>Danone</td><td>Agri-food group</td><td>100000</td></tr><tr><td>Ecofi</td><td>Asset management company, €8,2mds assets under management</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>Emlyon</td><td>Business School</td><td>550</td></tr><tr><td>Erilia</td><td>Real estate manager, Social housing management</td><td>890</td></tr><tr><td>Frey</td><td>Real estate investment</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Groupe Rocher</td><td>Cosmetics, textile</td><td>16300</td></tr><tr><td>La Banque postale</td><td>Bank-insurance company</td><td>10675</td></tr><tr><td>Le slip Français</td><td>Textile production</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>Meridiam</td><td>Asset management company, $22mds asset under management</td><td>368</td></tr><tr><td>Mirova</td><td>Asset management company, $35mds asset under management</td><td>105</td></tr><tr><td>Réalités</td><td>Real estate and territorial development company</td><td>1200</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Name</td><td>Brief description</td><td>Total workforce (2023)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Relyens mutual insurance</td><td>Insurance and risk management company</td><td>1200</td></tr><tr><td>Seqens</td><td>Social housing management</td><td>1600</td></tr><tr><td>Socaps</td><td>Technical assistance and consulting services for industrial equipment manufacturers</td><td>330</td></tr><tr><td>Tours événements</td><td>Event management</td><td>74</td></tr><tr><td>Voltalia</td><td>Renewable energy producer and service provider</td><td>1880</td></tr><tr><td>Wakam</td><td>Insurance company</td><td>330</td></tr></tbody></table>