IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM) e-ISSN: 2278-487X, p-ISSN: 2319-7668. Volume 18, Issue 10. Ver. I (October. 2016), PP 49-56 www.iosrjournals.org DOI: 10.9790/487X-1810014956 www.iosrjournals.org 49 | Page SMEs Awareness of Global Performance Issues; Case of Lebanon and Romania Riad Makdissi, Danie Khawaja, Selim Mekdessi 1 Abstract:This article focuses on the awareness level of the Lebanese and Romanian SMEs to global performance concepts and subsequently social responsibility. It especially emphasizes the possible link between social performance and financial performance within the companies and thus advances the financial policy of SMEs, their socially responsible practices and reasons for this commitment to the search for a global performance. To this end, a quantitative method has been established based on data generated from a questionnaire sent to Lebanese and Romanian SMEs. This research has an exploratory aim. The observed sample of SMEs shows the theory or hypothesis in which the SMEs are inscribed. A larger number of SMEs would have improved the external validity of the results. Keywords:Global Performance, Financial Performance, Social Performance, Lebanese SMEs, Romanian SMEs, Corporate Social Responsibility I. Introduction Talking about performance is looking into everything that helps improve the value for money and achieve strategic goals (Lorino, 2003). According to Bourguignon (1997), the achievement of these objectives can be understood in the strict sense (result, outcome), or in the broad sense of a process that leads to the result (action). "These goals can be financial, economic, social, environmental… Chardonnet and Thibaudon (2014) have defined the three pillars of performance - goals, means and results - by the triangle of performance based on relevance (appropriateness means / goals), effectiveness (degree of achievement of goals) and efficiency (effectiveness related to means). Making economic and social goals compatible will aim at ensuring a sustainable global performance by calculating the costs as well as visible and hidden performance (Savall and Zardet, 2009). Sustainable global performance is therefore defined in the socio-economic theory of organizations by two components: social performance and economic performance (Savall and Zardet, 2005). The design of the performance is strongly influenced by the convictions of the owner-manager (Bergeron and al., 2014). According to Baayoud (2005), there can be no sustainable economic performance without social performance. The social and societal performance of enterprises expand the concept of performance to encompass the corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Germain and Trébucq, 2004), which is defined by the European Commission (2001) as "the voluntary integration by enterprises of social and environmental concerns in their business operations and their relations with their stakeholders.” The first model of societal performance was suggested by Carroll (1979). It covers three dimensions of societal performance: a basic definition of social responsibility: it is to take into account both the economic viability and legal obligations, but also to have an ethical behavior in line with the social standards and expectations and a discretionary responsibility , a listing of the issues that justify the existence of a social responsibility. Among the social areas in which we have a responsibility, we can mention the environment, discrimination, and product safety, as well as a specification of the philosophy of action, reaction, and response (Reaction or proaction to these questions?). In this research we try to see to what extent Lebanese and Romanian SMEs take into account social dimensions in the assessment of their performance in parallel with economic and financial dimensions. Do SMEs in Lebanon and Romania go beyond the strictly financial view of performance toward an increasingly comprehensive and sustainable performance approach? The main hypothesis is that SMEs in Lebanon and Romania are in an embryonic state on CSR and the improvement of global performance and awareness of social performance issues are mainly undertaken in order to improve financial performance and create value. To provide answers to these questions, a study was conducted among 50 Lebanese SMEs and 22 Romanian SMEs. We start our work with a literature on global performance and the link between financial performance (FP) and social performance (SP) of enterprises from a theoretical viewpoint in order to identify later on the research field and the adopted methodology and to present the results obtained afterwards followed by a discussion. From an economic and financial performance to a global performance Speaking of financial performance is mainly speaking of profitability, assessment of liquidity, estimated future profit, competitiveness analysis and corporate bankruptcy forecast (Zeller and al. 1996). With financial scandals and bankruptcies that hit the world in recent years, particularly following the financial crisis of 2007-2008, the concept of financial performance was reviewed to try to define it in a more responsible and sustainable way (Grandin and Saidane, 2011). It will rather be a global enterprise performance. According to Marcel Lepetit, it is like “a multidimensional, economic, social and societal, financial and environmental target (or goal), concerning enterprises and human societies, employees and citizens” (Dohou and Berland, 2007). According to Maurel and Tensaout (2014), it is indirectly determined "by business practices, social practices and societal-environmental practices." Thus, it is the fact of articulating the financial and ESG (environmental, social and governance) stakes (Luthi and Mailly, 2015). In fact, according to Capron and Quairel- Lanoizelée (2006), "the concern for global performance and its valuation appears from the moment the company is not only bound to financial reporting by its owners, but must also account for its behavior in societal and environmental matters to a multitude of stakeholders.” This allows focusing on the stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984). According to Capron and Quairel -Lanoizelée (2010), this theory questions the compatibility between the economic rationality of the company and its societal concerns. Referring to Cazal (2011), the 1 Riad Makdessi, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Business Administration, Lebanese University, Lebanon. Danie Khawaja, Ph.D. candidate, CNAM Paris, France Selim Mekdessi, Ph.D., Full Professor, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Business Administration, Lebanese University, Lebanon. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Riad Makdessi, Lebanese University, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Business Administration, Branch III, Tripoli, North Lebanon. E-mail: riad_mcdessy@hotmail.com