It should not be confused with “political enterprise” and “partisan enterprise.” With each electoral opportunity, the question arises: what role can a company play in influencing voting decisions? The underlying question is: how can certain political forces be prevented from accessing power, or how can institutional resistance be organized if they achieve it? But by framing the issue this way, we are on the wrong track.
The company is not intended to dictate electoral choices to its employees. It is neither a party nor a moral authority tasked with correcting the ballot box. Assigning this function to them would be to move them out of their field of responsibility. Likewise, it is not a democratic principle to prohibit institutional dialogue with formations represented in public debate. The confusion between civic responsibility and partisan engagement weakens the company’s position.
However, the company cannot simply retreat into abstract neutrality. It is an inherently political place in the sociological sense. It does not engage in politics, but it generates politics through its structures, its decision-making, and its organization of work.
It first generates politics when the gap between its stated commitments and its actual practices becomes apparent. In 2024, 58% of young employees believed that CSR commitments were related to greenwashing or social washing (OpinionWay). In 2025, only 45% of employees consider that the interests of executives and those of employees converge (Viavoice). These data do not indicate a lack of corporate responsibility; they signal a demand for alignment. When the promise is not kept, symbolic credit erodes.
The company also generates politics through the ordinary work experience. According to Viavoice, when defining a “meaningful job,” employees cite “quality of work-life” (44%) and a “fair salary” (39%) as top priorities, far ahead of explicitly militant or citizen dimensions. The social question remains structuring.
In addition, a worrying reality is added: 35% of French people claim to “suffer at work,” and 22% believe that their professional activity affects their mental health (Great Insights, 2025). Therefore, work is not just a contractual space; it is a place of recognition, conflict, identity construction, and projection. It is one of the main vectors of social integration.
It is also important to note that SMEs employ more than 10 million people. They rarely have the resources to formalize sophisticated engagement or well-being initiatives. However, they structurally shape the national work experience. Any reflection on the political responsibility of companies that only focuses on large groups would miss a decisive part of social reality.
Recent electoral results show that working-class categories have given majority support to the far-right. It would be simplistic to view this purely as an ideological phenomenon. Working conditions, career prospects, material stability, and the sense of consideration are central variables in the formation of political preferences. Work shapes social trajectories; it indirectly but structurally contributes to “producing voters.”
Saying, as Pascal Demurger does, that the 21st-century company “will be political or will not exist” does not mean it has to seek to produce “good” votes. It means that it cannot ignore the social effects of its organization. Its responsibility is not to replace parties, schools, or the media. It is to keep its commitments, ensure coherence between proclaimed values and actual practices, and organize work sustainably and fairly.
The political contribution of companies lies not in moral injunctions, but in the solidity of their structures. Putting work at the center—conditions of work, recognition, remuneration, perspectives—is a strategic responsibility. It is within this coherence that its social legitimacy and, indirectly, its contribution to collective stability are at play.
Elodie Baussand is the co-founder of Tenzing and a member of the board of EPIDE.
