Water Globalization: The Strategies of the Two French “Majors”

Abstract

Two French groups dominate the worldwide water and wastewater market: Veolia Environnement and Suez Environnement. The domination by these groups, the so-called majors, stems from the specific history of the development of this sector in France, the implementation of offensive strategies of horizontal, vertical, and environmental integration, and the development of progressive internationalization. The companies became multi-service groups and form an oligopoly that structures the water market in France. However, the growing tendency of people to view water issues as an essential good and public service brings increasing demands for public control and regulation that can reduce the majors’ room to maneuver and force difficult strategic redeployments.

Keywords

Vertical Integration Water Service Water Sector Water Market Structural Asymmetry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bain JS (1956) Barriers to new competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bain JS (1959) Industrial organization. Willey, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauby P (2011) Service public. Services publics. La Documentation Française, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauby P, Varone F (2007) Europeanization of the French electricity policy: four paradoxes. J Eur Public Policy 14:1048–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonin H (1987) Suez, du Canal à la Finance 1858–1987. Economica, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Breuil L, Pezon C (2005) Une analyse comparée de l’évolution du modèle concessif en France au XIXe siècle et dans les pays en développement à la fin des années 1990, Systèmes de régulation du service public de l’eau”. In: Paper presented at the CNRS GDR “rés-EAU-ville” seminar, 10 et 11 février 2005, 8 Saint-Denis University, ParisGoogle Scholar
  7. De Meritens P, Fabry J (2001) La Lyonnaise des Eaux (1880–2000). Suez-Lyonnaise des EauxGoogle Scholar
  8. Drouet D (1987) L’industrie de l’eau dans le monde. Presses de l’ENPCGoogle Scholar
  9. Estache A (2006) Infrastructure: a survey of recent and upcoming issues. World Bank. Available in: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDECABCTOK2006/Resources/Antonio_Estache_Infrastructure_for_Growth.pdf
  10. Foster V (2005) Ten years of water service reform in Latin America: toward an Anglo-French Model. The World Bank Group, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. GDF Suez (2012a) Document de référence 2011. Available in www.gdfsuez.com/group/
  12. GDF Suez (2012b) Rapport développement durable 2011. Available in www.gdfsuez.com/group/
  13. Guasch JL (2004) Granting and renegociating infrastructure concessions. Doing it right? World Bank Institute, Development Studies, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Haghe JP (1998) Les eaux courantes et l’Etat en France 1789–1920. Du contrôle institutionnel à la fétichisation marchande. Dissertation, EHESSGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall D, Lobina E, Corral V (2011) Trends in water privatization. Available in http://www.psiru.org/sites/default/files/2011-03-W-Japan.doc
  16. Lorrain D (1990) Le modèle français de services urbains. Economie et Humanisme 312Google Scholar
  17. Lorrain D (1995a) Les services urbains en France 1982–1992. In: Lorrain D (ed) La privatisation des services urbains en Europe. La Découverte, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. Lorrain D (1995b) Gestions urbaine de l’eau. Economica, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. Lorrain D (2005) La firme locale-globale : Lyonnaise des Eaux 1980–2004. Sociologie du TravailGoogle Scholar
  20. Lupton S, Bauby P (2008) Directives européennes sur la qualité de l’eau et montée de la délégation du service d’eau potable en France. Cosmopolitiques 17, Editions ApogéeGoogle Scholar
  21. Mason E (1979) The corporation in modern society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Morin F (1996) L’oligopole des groupes multi-services français : dynamique, concurrence et coopération. In: International conference, services publics délégués et marchés de l’eau, ToulouseGoogle Scholar
  23. OIEAU (International Office for Water) (2002) French country report, Aqualibrium ProjectGoogle Scholar
  24. Orange M, Boisseau L (2007) L’histoire secrète du mariage entre GDF et Suez. La Tribune, September 18, 19Google Scholar
  25. Pezon C (2000) Le service d’eau potable en France de 1850 à 1995. Presses du CEREM, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. Schneier-Madanes G, de Gouvello B (2003) Conflits de l’eau à Buenos Aires, les enjeux urbains, Eaux et réseaux, les défis de la mondialisation. IHEAL/La Documentation française, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Sierra K (2006) L’accès à l’eau pour tous impose d’investir dans les infrastructures. Le Monde, March 21Google Scholar
  28. Sirtaine S, Pinglo ME, Guasch JL et al (2005) How profitable are infrastructure concessions in Latin America? Empirical evidence and regulatory implications, vol 2, Trends and policy options. World Bank, PPIAF, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Suez (2007) Document de reference. Available in http://www.info-financiere.fr/upload/MAN/2009/09/FCMAN112904_20090911.pdf
  30. Suez ancre sa stratégie dans l’eau et l’énergie ( 2004) La Tribune, March 5Google Scholar
  31. The World Bank (1994) Infrastructure for development: annual report, World Bank and Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  32. Veolia Environnement (2006) Rapport annuel. Available in http://www.finance.veolia.com/docs/pdf/file0390.pdf
  33. Veolia Environnement (2007) Document de référence. Available in http://www.finance.veolia.com/docs/DDR-2007-version-finale-31-03-08.pdf
  34. Veolia Environnement (2012) Rapport financier annuel – document de référence. Available in http://www.finance.veolia.com/docs/VE-DDR-2011-FR-16-04-2012.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paris 8ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations