Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House (2002)

Sources

• Sur LVMH :
  • Kerlau (2010) Les dynasties du luxe. Chapitre 6.
  • Routier (2003) L’ange exterminateur – La vraie vie de Bernard Arnault. Chapitres 7 et 8.
  • Sebag-Montefiore (1992) Kings on the catwalk – The Louis Vuitton and Moët-Hennessy affaire. Chapters 6 to 10.
  • Villette & Vuillermot (2005) Portrait de l’homme d’affaire en prédateur. Chapitre 5.
  • Le documentaire « Luxe, la fabrique du rêve » de France TV.
• Grille de lecture académique :
  • Volle (2007). Prédation et prédateurs. Chapitre 1.
  • Mesly, O., & Mangin, J. P. L. (2013). La théorie de la prédation en marketing: Une interprétation des comportements des agents de marché?. La Revue des Sciences de Gestion, 261262(3), 131-138.

Premier niveau d’analyse

• A partir de Kerlau (2010, Ch 6, partie 5) et Routier (2003, Ch 7 & 8), reconstituez les jeux d’alliance entre Henry Rocamier et Alain Chevalier d’abord, puis avec Bernard Arnault. Détaillez les raisons des rapprochements, les intérêts de chacun, puis éventuellement les motifs de distance, et les éventuelles tractations, négociations, promesses, et trahisons, depuis la création de LVMH jusqu’à l’entrée d’Arnault.

Second niveau d’analyse

• A partir de Volle (2007, Ch 1) et de Mesly & Mangin (2013), définissez ce que serait une ‘éthique du prédateur’ (sans idéaliser, ni diaboliser la prédation). Utilisez le cas de Bernard Arnault tel que décrit par Villette & Vuillermot (2005) pour illustrer.

Troisième niveau d’analyse

• Utilisez les grilles conceptuelles développées autour de la notion de prédation (Mesly & Mangin, 2013; Volle, 2007; Villette & Vuillermot 2005) pour analyser les jeux d’alliance de Bernard Arnault pour entrer au capital de LVMH. Reprenez pour cela en détail les données venant de Kerlau (2010) et Routier (2003) en ajoutant celles de Sebag-Montefiore (1992, Ch 6 à 10) et le documentaire « Luxe, la fabrique du rêve ».
• N’oubliez pas que dans le monde des affaires un même acteur peut-être à la fois prédateur et proie, et que les prédateurs ne sont pas forcément les ‘méchants’ et les proies des ‘gentils’. Des schémas présentant la constellation des acteurs et leurs relations pourraient vous aider à clarifier le propos.
• Pour conclure, répondez de manière argumentée à la question : Est-ce que Bernard Arnault mérite son surnom de ‘loup en cachemire’ ?

Mayer (2016) Chapter 1

Schulman (2015, Ch 5)

Schulman (2015, Ch 6)

Schulman (2015, Ch 13)

Sustainability as a business

Final assessment

• Collective 2,500-word essays (+/-10%)
  • Sent as PDF to yoannbazin@yahoo.fr
  • Must include at least 10 quotes from academic sources and 10 quotes from empirical material (with precise sources each time and a reference list)
  • Figures and references are not part of the word count
  • Your conclusion should take a position on the subject (it doesn’t have to be radical, but it has to state a position clearly on what to do or where to go from there)
• Subjects correspond to the ‘final integration’
  • See assignments of December 11th
• Deadline: December 22nd

03/10 – Introduction

• 9h30-12h30 – Methodology
  • Critical thinking
    • Case: Margin call
  • Evidence-based
    • Case: The big short

10/10 – Sustainability, a history

• 9h30-11h30: Sustainability, a history
• 11h30-12h: An individual matter?
  • WWF Footprint Calculator
  • Debates and discussions
• 12h-12h30: Conclusion

17/10 – Beyond Petroleum?

• 9h30-10h30: BP case study
  • BP Deepwater Horizon
  • BP in Pastoralia
• 10h30-11h45: Revolving doors in the fossil fuel industry
  • Presentation group C: What is the extent of revolving doors practices in the fossil fuel industry? (with a focus on BP)
    • Deliverable: 2-page research note by email two days before, and 15-minute presentation during the class
    • Sources: EU Parliament report and press articles about BP
  • Presentation group A: How do Koch Industries use revolving doors to further their interests?
    • Deliverable: 2-page research note by email two days before, and 15-minute presentation during the class
    • Sources: Greenpeace reports and Open Secrets
• 11h45-12h30: Manufacturing consent
  • Presentation group F: What were the recommendations made by Frank Luntz to US Republicans on how to talk about the environment?
    • Deliverable: 2-page research note by email two days before, and 15-minute presentation during the class
    • Source: The 2002 Luntz Memo
• Conclusion on business & society (& sustainability)

07/11 – Sustainability vs. CSR

• Assignment for all groups: Read Friedman (1970)
• 9h30-11h: Problematizing CSR
  • The spirit(s) of capitalism
  • Debating Friedman (1970)
  • From CSR1 to CSR2
• 11h15-12h: Complexifying CSR2
  • Presentation Group B: The grocery bag case study
  • Deliverable: 2-page research note by email two days before, and 15-minute presentation during the class
• 12h-12h30: (De)politicizing CSR
  • CSR as the new spirit of capitalism

12/11 – Tutorials

• Group A – Prepare Unpacking the Kochtopus, Step 6
• Group B – Prepare Carbon accounting, Steps 2 & 3
• Group C – Prepare Revolving doors, Steps 1 & 2
• Group D – Prepare Carbon accounting and climate fictions, Steps 1 & 2
• Group E – Prepare Modern slavery, Steps 1 & 2
• Group D – Prepare Unpacking the Kochtopus, Step 4

14/11 – Carbon accounting

• 13h30-14h15: When frames collide
• 14h15-14h45: Presentation Group B
  • Assignment: Summarize Kaplan & Ramana (2021)
• 14h45-15h30: Giti Tire case study
• 15h45-16h15: Presentation Group D
  • Assignment: Summarize the first 3 months of Carbon Diaries, both at individual levels (Laura, her family, her friends and neighbours) and institutional levels (country, regulation, city, etc.)
  • Sources: Lloyd (2008) Carbon Diaries
• 16h15-16h30: Conclusion

21/11 – The Ministry for the Future

• 9h30-10h15: Carbon Diaries
  • Presentation Group D
• 10h15-11h45: Consulting for XR
• 12h-12h30: The Ministry for the Future

25/11 – Tutorials

28/11 – Unsustainability as a business

• Presentation Group A
  • Unpacking the Kochtopus, Step 6
• Presentation Group C
  • Present Revolving doors, Steps 1 & 2
• Presentation Group F
  • Present Chapter 6 of Merchants of doubt

11/12 – Research projects & Presentations

• Group A – Unpacking the Kochtopus, Final integration
• Group B – Carbon accounting, Final integration
• Group C – Revolving doors, Step 2 and a proposal for a concrete case in the gas & oil industry you would like to study specifically.
• Group D – Carbon accounting and climate fictions, Final integration (focusing on Carbon Diaries and The Ministry for the Future, not Ecotopia)
• Group E – Modern slavery, Step 2 and a proposal for a concrete case you would like to study specifically.
• Group F – Fostering climate doubt, Step 3 and a proposal for a concrete case in the gas & oil industry which sustainability communication you would like to study specifically.

Workgroups

Business ethics and corporate governance

Final assessment

• Collective 2,500-word essays (+/-10%)
  • Sent as PDF to yoannbazin@yahoo.fr
  • Must include at least 10 quotes from academic sources and 10 quotes from empirical material (with precise sources each time and a reference list)
  • Figures and references are not part of the word count
  • Your conclusion should take a position on the subject (it doesn’t have to be radical, but it has to state a position clearly on what to do or where to go from there)
• Subjects correspond to the ‘final integration’
  • See assignments of December 11th
• Deadline: December 22nd

03/10 – Introduction

• 13h30-16h30 – Conceptual framework
  • Stakeholder approach to strategy
  • Strategic perspective on governance

10/10 – Governance & Strategy

• 13h30-14h30: Strategic evels
  • The levels of strategy
  • Case: Margin call
• 14h30-16h30 – Mapping out corporate governance
• Case: Too big to fail

17/10 – Strategy and governance of Koch Industries

07/11 – Governance, strategy and ideology

• 13h30-15h: Management as an ideology
  • What is an ideology?
  • History and ethics of managerialism
  • Management as a de-politicizing ideology
• 15h30-16h30: The Kochtopus as robust action
  • The Koch brothers’ ideological plan (Group A)
    • Introduce Richard Fink, his career and his role in the Koch galaxy. Present the main arguments of the article (Fink, 1996). Use your previous work and Doreian & Mrvar’s (2021) analysis to explain how Fink’s ideological strategy structured the Kochtopus.
    • Deliverable: 2-page research note by email two days before, and 15-minute presentation during the class
    • Sources: Fink (1996) and Doreian & Mrvar (2021)
  • Robust action strategy

14/11 – Whistleblowing at Theranos

• 9h30-10h45: Presentations
  • Group D: Presentation of Wood et al (2022), linking it to the Theranos case study.
    • Deliverable: 2-page research note by email two days before, and 15-minute presentation during the class
  • Group C: Presentation on Elizabeth Holmes’ defence strategy
    • What were Elizabeth Holmes’ different defence strategies during the trial? How solid were they? How likely were they to succeed? In particular, underline the claims and arguments she used to justify that she was not responsible and/or could not be held accountable of what happened in Theranos. Pay attention to the diffusion strategies (how she blames other) and their organizational aspects (delegation of responsibility, size of the company, lack of experience or expertise, etc.).
    • Deliverable: 2-page research note by email two days before, and 15-minute presentation during the class
    • Sources: Theranos case study, along with episodes “Bombshell” and “Setting the stage” of ABC’s podcast The Drop Out, and episode 1 (“The Sympathy Play”) of the podcast Bad Blood: The Final Chapter
  • Group B: Presentation of the whistleblowing of Erika Cheung and Tyler Schultz
    • Present Thomas’ (2020) network perspective on whistleblowing. Use his mode of presentation (in particular: Figures 1, 2 & 3) to map out the whistleblowing journey of Erika Cheung and Tyler Schultz
    • Deliverable: 2-page research note by email two days before, and 15-minute presentation during the class
    • Sources: Thomas (2020), Carreyrou (2015, Ch. 16 to 21) and the Theranos case study
• 11h-12h: Collective analysis of Theranos’ whistleblowing threads
  • Group A focuses on the early issues raised in Theranos. Based on Carreyrou’s (2015) Chapter 1 to 4, follow precisely how Ana Ariola and Avie Tevanian came to be concerned and how they voiced these concerns internally. List the other actors and organizations that were involved in the process of understanding the issues (see Template below). Analyze the reactions of the organization, Elizabeth Holmes in particular but also Don Lucas and other executive or board members for example. Map these encounters following the template below.
  • Group B will focus on the final threads around John Carreyrou’s publication. Based on Carreyrou’s (2015) Chapters 19, 21 and 23, reconstruct how John Carreyrou came to know about Theranos, how he confirmed the statements. Analyze in particular who he met, how he found them and how he slowly built the case – account also for people and organization that tried to stop him or change his mind.
  • Group C: will focus on Ian Gibbons. Based on Carreyrou’s (2015) Chapters 12, 14, 19 and 21, follow precisely how Ian Gibbons came to be concerned and how they voiced these concerns internally. List the other actors and organizations that were involved in the process of understanding the issues (see Template below). Analyze the reactions of the organization, Elizabeth Holmes in particular but also Sunny Balwany or the company’s lawyer for example. Map these encounters following the template below.
  • Group D will focus on Richard Fuisz Based on Carreyrou’s (2015) Chapters 5, 11, 18 and 19, follow precisely how Richard Fuisz came to be interested in Theranos and how he later voiced his concerns externally. List the other actors and organizations that were involved in the process of understanding the issues (see Template below). Analyze the reactions of the organization, Elizabeth Holmes in particular but also Sunny Balwany or the company’s lawyer for example. Map these encounters following the template below.
  • Template for the mapping out of interactions
    • Confirmation: Place the interactions that contributed to moving the whistleblowing forward (confirmation, validation, encouragement, …) with the name of the person involved and the date
    • Contradiction: Place the interactions that slowed down the whistleblowing process (challenges, counter-arguments, punishments, threats, …) with the name of the person involved and the date.
    • See example below:

• 12h-12h30: Conclusion

21/11 – Organization & Ethics

• 13h30-14h30: What is ethics?
• 14h30-15h: The dangers of slippery slope:
  • Group D: Presentation of Theohadraki et al (2021) with a focus on the slippery slope and moral disengagement.
    • Deliverable: 2-page research note vy email two days before, and 15-minute presentation during the class
• 15h15-16h30: Collective analysis of Silicon Valley (HBO)
  • Each group watches its assigned episode and analyzes it based on: moments of hesitation and debate about a decision to make, dilemmas, negotiations, arguments.
    • Group A: S03E10 / Group B: S04E09 / Group C: S04E10 / Group D: S02E09
    • The aim is to identify the principles and values behind these moments, and to use Theohadraki et al’s (2021) framework to identify moments of slippery slope (see below).
    • In the end, pick one extract (2-3 minutes max) to show the rest of the class and show your analysis.

• Illustration with Season 1, Episode 1:

25/11 – Tutorials

28/11 – Accountability and responsibility at Wells Fargo

• 13h30-14h45: Presentations
  • Group C: Analysis of Stumpf’s blame-game strategies
    • Based on Roulet & Pichler’s (2020) blame-game theory, present the four main pathways theyr identify. Analyze Joe Stumpf’s defence during his opening address and answers to the House of Representatives (14’50-31’00) by identifying his rhetorical strategies (see example below). Using Roulet & Pichler’s (2020), shed a light on Stumpf’s attempt at cultivating « high attributional ambiguity » to avoid « Pathway D ».
    • Deliverable: 2-page research note vy email two days before, and 15-minute presentation during the class
    • Sources: Roulet & Pichler (2020), the Wells Fargo case study and the Senate hearing on « Wells Fargo Unauthorized Accounts »
    • Group D:
  • Example of analysis of rhetorical strategies (these three categories are just an illustration, more should be found):

• 15h-16h: Collective analysis of Joe Stumpf’s rhetorical strategies
  • Based on the analytical grid provided by Group C, each group analyzes a portion of Joe Stumpf’s testimonie in the front of the Senate. Bonus will be given to groups identifying strategies that Group C did not notice.
  • Group A: Analysis of Stumpf’s answers to Representarives Randy Neugebauer and Carolyn Maloney (31’15-42’30), Patrick McHenry and Nydia Velazquez (42’35-53’00), and Scott Garrett and Brad Sherman (53’10-1’03’50)
  • Group B: Analysis of Stumpf’s answers to Representarives Blaine Luetkemeyer and Gregory Meeks (1’04’00-1’14’30), Sean Duffy and Michael Capuano (1’14’40-1’25’20), and Ed Royce and Stephen Lynch (1’25’30-1’36’30)
  • Group C: Analysis of Stumpf’s answers to Representarives Frank Lucas and David Scott (1’36’30-1’47’10), Steve Pearce and Al Green (1’47’20-1’58’10), and Bill Posey and Emanuel Cleaver (1’58’15-2’08’50)
  • Group D: Analysis of Stumpf’s answers to Representarives Michael Fitzpatrick and Gwen Moore (2’08’50-2’19’25), Marlin Stutzman and Keith Ellison (2’19’25-2’29’40), and Mick Mulvaney and Ed Perlmutter (2’29’40-2’40’10)
• 16h-16h30: Responsability and accountability in modern organizations

11/12 – Presentations of research projects

• Group A: Analysis of the structure of the Kochtopus
  • Going back to Fink (1996) and using it as a structure, complete the collective analysis of the Kochtopus done in class adding data from Schulman (2015, Ch 5, 6 & 13), Mayer (2016, Ch 5, 6, 7 & 8) and Leonard (2019, Ch 19).
  • Complete this figure and use it as the center of your presentation.
• Group B: Analysis of whistleblowing at Theranos
  • Going back to Thomas (2020) as a representation of whistleblowing, complete the collective analysis of Theranos’ whistleblowers done in class adding data from the early issues raised in Theranos (Carreyrou’s (2015) Chapter 1 to 4), Ian Gibbons (Carreyrou’s (2015) Chapters 12, 14, 19 and 21), Richard Fuisz (Carreyrou’s (2015) Chapters 5, 11, 18 and 19), and the final threads around John Carreyrou’s publication (Carreyrou’s (2015) Chapters 19, 21 and 23).
  • Complete this figure and use it as the center of your presentation.
• Group C: Analysis of Wells Fargo blame-game strategie
  • Going back to Roulet & Pichler (2020) as a analytical grid, complete the analysis of Stumpf’s testimony before the US Senate , adding data from all his answers during the Senate hearing on « Wells Fargo Unauthorized Accounts ».
  • Map out his answers on Roulet & Pichler’s (2020) grid (in particular Figure 1) and use it as the center of your presentation.
• Group D: Analysis of Fake it ’till you make it
  • Going back to Theohadraki et al (2021) as a analytical grid, complete the collective analysis of Silicon Valley in class adding your own analysis of Richard Hendricks during Seasons 3 and 4 of the TV show.
  • Use the 8 types of moral disengagements (Table 1) as analytical categories to classify your data and use it as the center of your presentation.

12/12 – Integrating levels in the fog of war

• 13h30-14h: Strategic thinking
• 14h-14h30: Military strategy in the fog of war
• 14h30-16h: Waterloo

Workgroups

Chapitres 6, 7, 8 et 9

Chapitres 5, 19 et Postface

Chapitre 4 – Gucci

Chapitre 6 – Louis Vuitton

Sources

• Sur Gucci et LVMH
  • Kerlau (2010) Les dynasties du luxe. Chapitre 4.
  • Gay Forden (2021) House of Gucci. Chapitres 5, 19 et Postface
  • Marchand (2001) Les guerres du luxe. Chapitres 6, 7, 8 et 9.
  • Routier (2003) L’ange exterminateur – La vraie vie de Bernard Arnault. Chapitres 14 et 15.
• Grille de lecture académique :
  • Mesly, O., & Mangin, J. P. L. (2013). La théorie de la prédation en marketing: Une interprétation des comportements des agents de marché?. La Revue des Sciences de Gestion, 261262(3), 131-138.
  • Volle (2007). Prédation et prédateurs. Chapitre 1.
  • Coussi, O., & Moinet, N. (2019). Extension du domaine de la prédation. Revue française de gestion, 285(8), 211-227.

Premier niveau d’analyse

• A partir de Routier (2003, Ch. 14 et 15) expliquez comment Bernard Arnault a détecté la possibilité d’un rachat de Gucci et comment il a organisé son attaque. Montrez également comment Domenico De Sole a détecté l’OPA hostile et comment il a organisé la défense de Gucci.

Second niveau d’analyse

• A partir de Kerlau (2010, Ch. 4) et Gay Forden (2021, Ch. 5), montrez que l’histoire de Gucci est tramée de tensions entre le poids de l’héritage de la maison, le besoin d’adaptation aux marché et le désir pour certains d’innover. Identifiez les principaux épisodes de dilemmes, tensions et tractations et présentez-en les résultats.

Troisième niveau d’analyse

• Utilisez les grilles conceptuelles développées autour de la notion de prédation pour analyser l’OPA hostile de LVMH sur Gucci. Reprenez pour cela en détail les données venant de Routier (2003, Ch. 14 et 15) en ajoutant celles de Gay Forden (2021, Ch. 19 et Postface) et de Marchand (2001). N’oubliez pas que dans le monde des affaires un même acteur peut-être à la fois prédateur et proie, et que les prédateurs ne sont pas forcément les ‘méchants’ et les proies des ‘gentils’. Des schémas présentant la constellation des acteurs et leurs relations pourraient vous aider à clarifier le propos.

Sources

• Sur LVMH :
  • Kerlau (2010) Les dynasties du luxe. Chapitre 4.

Premier niveau d’analyse

• A partir de Kerlau (2010), montrez que l’histoire de Gucci est tramée de tensions entre le poids de l’héritage de la maison, le besoin d’adaptation aux marché et le désir pour certains d’innover. Identifiez les principaux épisodes de dilemmes, tensions et tractations et présentez-en les résultats.

Second niveau d’analyse