This article is published as part of a partnership with the *Revue française de gestion*, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2025.

Management is not just that often-caricatured activity of controlling, coordinating, and evaluating performance. It is also a more exploratory activity involving the leadership of unprecedented collective actions, such as organizing an ecological, digital, or health transition.

The objectives, resources, and methods are then developed as the process unfolds. In such situations, the first challenge for research is to understand what “managing” might mean.

To this end, our article published in the *Revue française de gestion* proposes a framework for analysis—inspired by the work of Michel Foucault—that we call “mise en dispositif.” Why this term, and what are its principles? To answer this, let’s first revisit the meaning of the word “dispositif,” then examine how the philosopher used it, before illustrating its relevance using the example of the low-carbon transition.

The Two Meanings of the Term “Device”

A very common word in the French language, “dispositif” is etymologically derived from the Latin “dispositio,” which refers to two things:

• the act of arranging elements toward a specific purpose,

• but also one of the aspects of rhetoric: organizing arguments in such a way as to make them understandable.

These two dimensions are reflected in the common usage of the term: the assembly of elements into a coherent whole designed to fulfill a function or achieve a goal (for example, we speak of technical or educational systems, etc.) and the rhetorical strategies that accompany the implementation of any public system.

The term has long been part of the world of management, where it is used in a sense close to its common meaning. Thus, a management system is often described as an established framework of rules, tools, and stakeholders that form a coherent whole aimed at achieving a specific goal—for example, a competency management system.

The Legacy of Michel Foucault

This common conception is static. It says nothing about how the system came into being: how and by whom was it designed? For what purposes?

The question of how devices are formed was precisely the focus of philosopher Michel Foucault’s analysis as he examined the dynamics of new forms of collective action. He highlights three key points regarding the formation of a device:

• its definitive and context-specific nature, which addresses a strategic urgency within a specific context;

• its heterogeneity (it is composed of discursive, spatial, instrumental, human, legal, moral, and other elements);

• the collective activity that constitutes the “mechanism” by organizing these heterogeneous elements to give them meaning and the ability to guide the behavior of the actors.

In our article, we highlight the value of the “dispositif” framework for understanding the processes through which new forms of collective action emerge. We place particular emphasis on the process of arranging heterogeneous elements (discourse, instruments, knowledge, actors’ roles, architecture, etc.) with a view to achieving goals that are open to revision.

We also emphasize that this process of establishing systems never starts from a blank slate. New systems build upon or complement existing ones, linking them together and giving them a new purpose and new meaning for those involved.

The Low-Carbon Transition in Practice

Let’s illustrate this approach using the example of establishing a carbon initiative within a major construction conglomerate. The low-carbon transition is one of the current mantras of both public and private decision-makers. But how can it be implemented?

The starting point for the investigation is as follows. In the mid-2000s, the group’s executives anticipated a regulatory shift in Europe: the energy performance of buildings would be supplemented by a carbon footprint assessment. What’s the difference between energy and carbon? The challenge is no longer just to improve building insulation, but to reduce the carbon footprint of their construction—that is, the choice of materials and building systems. This requires a complete overhaul of construction methods and supply chains.

However, at that time, the group did not have any carbon calculation tools and had no solutions available. Rather than setting ambitious goals, management chose a more modest approach. It tasked an in-house expert with designing a simplified carbon footprint assessment that operational staff could easily adopt. After a testing and configuration phase, a calculation tool was developed. All project managers were then required to quantify low-carbon alternatives, regardless of whether the client requested them or not.

A calculation that makes sense…

For this calculation to be meaningful and produce concrete results, painstaking work is required to integrate the tool with a whole series of complementary elements, turning it into a coherent management system.

Partnerships focused on the development of low-carbon materials and solutions are being launched and tested at pilot sites. Here are a few examples.

A low-carbon innovation committee is established. A sector-specific carbon accounting framework is developed alongside a “low-carbon buildings” label, which may serve as a precursor to future regulations. The design of low-carbon pilot projects helps demonstrate the concept’s relevance.

Only after a lengthy process of implementing measures did the group finally announce a strategic roadmap. It will be regularly revised in light of developments and the introduction of other public or competing measures, which, in turn, will drive new arrangements.

Implementation is, in essence, a multifaceted process resulting from local and central initiatives, and the researcher’s task is to meticulously reconstruct the process, its expected and unexpected effects, and its transformative potential.