‘Do not expect me to stay quiet’: Challenges in managing a historical strategic resource

Abstract

In this paper we explore how a historical strategic resource (HSR) could be used by an organization. We propose that within an organization, HSR is both an asset and an arena for power struggle. Our contributions stand at several levels at the crossroads of strategic management and organizational studies. First, we show the importance of various stakeholders in constructing a HSR. Second, we highlight its complexity due to its embeddedness with history. The fact that a HSR could be akin to a public good implies that its rents are difficult to control for organizations. To uncover what is meant by a historical resource, we first present a review of the resource-based theory and the uses of the past in organizations from the perspective of organization theory and organizational history. We then present our fieldwork, which focuses on Emmaus, a major charity organization in France, and its founder, Abbé Pierre. Based on a historical study covering the period 1949 to 2017 drawing on the organization’s archives, online publications and data from the French national audiovisual archives, we identify visual and rhetorical elements that constitute Abbé Pierre and his past as HSR for the Emmaus organization. Eventually, our paper contributes to the literature by offering a four-dimensional management framework for HSR with appropriation, ownership, maintenance and distancing.

Keywords

Abbé Pierre civil society Emmaus historical resource-based view rhetorical construction historical strategic resource visual analysis visual construction

Introduction

To pursue a strategy more efficiently than other organizations and to maintain their legitimacy, organizations make use of strategic resources. According to the resource-based theory (RBT), an organizational asset is deemed a strategic resource if it is valuable, such that it reduces costs or increases value for customers; if the competitors do not use the same resource to compete; and if it is difficult to imitate or substitute by competitors (Barney & Hesterly, 2005). Resources identified in the literature as potentially strategic include physical assets, reputation, patents and organizational processes. RBT focuses on the role of resources in inter-firm competition and performance, paying less attention to the specificities of strategic resources and their management.

We build on this literature to explore the challenges of managing resources characterized as complex, an under-examined area in organization studies. The subject of managing complex resources mostly appears in publications that look at strategic human resource management (Coff, 1997; Coff & Kryscynski, 2011). Indeed, a human resource is considered an asset because it is unique, but it is hard to control because of its complexity (Bhattacharya & Wright, 2005): a human resource can reject the authority of top managers or have specific requests that challenge the management’s interests (Coff, 1997). This resource also introduces the element of uncertainty about whether it might quit the organization.

In this research, we look at human strategic resources as a resource which, together with others, is characterized by complexity, partly because of its historical nature. We propose the notion of historical strategic resource (HSR), meaning a resource whose capacity to generate value is related to its historical nature. It can combine human, physical and intangible resources articulated through historical visual and textual rhetoric.

Suddaby, Foster and Trank (2010) set up a framework for understanding history as a source of competitive advantage, establishing a link between strategic management and organization theory. In defining history as a ‘social and rhetorical construction that can be shaped and manipulated to motivate, persuade and frame action both within and outside an organization’ (p. 147), they offer a strong foundation to build on. We seek to develop this perspective regarding historical resources using the following research questions: What are the sources and dimensions of HSR? Considering their diversity and complexity, what are the specific challenges in managing HSR?

To answer these questions, we focus on the case of Emmaus, an international charitable organization founded in France in 1949 by a Catholic priest, Henri Grouès, a.k.a. Abbé Pierre (1912–2007) (see Appendix 1).

In line with the ‘uses of the past’ approach advocated in this special issue, we agree that history is not an exogenous variable that is beyond the control of managers (as is the past). Rather, history is the narration of ‘what has happened’ by professional historians, publicists or company employees (Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014), and includes objective and subjective aspects in the tradition of Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983). To quote Scranton and Fridenson (2013), ‘Citizens, advertising agencies, antique dealers, and politicians all construct historical narratives, find value in employing them, and modify them as the years pass’ (p. 2).

For most organizations, history is a de facto asset that expresses itself in the form of tangibles – long-standing products or property – and intangibles such as brands, rituals or shared stories of past events. History also has its dark corners, a potential liability when organizations have operated unethically or were complicit in crimes (James, 2001; Verbitsky & Bohoslavsky, 2015; Wubs, 2008). In managerial terms, history is also used to address perceived expectations and demands placed on the organization by its environment in order to foster commitment among external audiences. It may also inspire commitment among employees (Zundel, Holt, & Popp, 2016). For all these reasons, there is a strong urge for organizations to manage history just as they manage people, finance, physical assets, patents or brands to achieve superior performance.

Our research outlines the complexity of a HSR, mainly due to two elements: (1) this resource is inscribed in history constituted by various stakeholders – partly outside the organization – and therefore eludes the sole control of the organization; and (2) the historicity of the resource lends it a legendary dimension that can be challenging for the organization to act upon. Consequently, several management dimensions are pertinent to dealing with the complexity of HSR.

We first present a theoretical framework to apprehend history as a strategic resource based on RBT, organization studies and the corporate heritage literature. Next, we introduce our context and methodology, which is an analysis of historical data from multiple sources. We then present our findings and discuss their theoretical implications.

Literature Review

As outlined in the introduction, each organization has a portfolio of resources (Barney, 1991; Penrose, 1959). The potential contribution of history as a strategic resource has, in recent years, been emphasized by scholars in organization studies and strategic management (Bucheli & Wadhwani, 2014; Foster, Suddaby, Minkus, & Wiebe, 2011; Kahl, Silverman, & Cusumano, 2012; Kipping & Üsdiken, 2009; Kirsch, Moeen, & Wadhwani, 2013; Lipartito, 2014; Suddaby et al., 2010).

The recent literature highlights the many purposes of history as a resource with the potential for being managed. As such, Zundel et al. (2016) have established a typology of uses of history to gain commitment both from external audiences and within the organization. They insist on the role of history in strategizing, with a particular emphasis on organizational identity in the tradition of Gioia, Patvardhan, Hamilton and Corley (2013), and refer to speech act theory and performativity. Earlier research had already underlined the potential of history in relation to corporate culture (Rowlinson & Hassard, 1993) and the construction of organizational identity (Rowlinson, Booth, Clark, Delahaye, & Procter, 2010). Zundel et al. (2016) also support findings in organizational change (Brunninge, 2009; Ybema, 2014), when history is used to reinforce identity as well as to foment organizational oblivion and forgetting (Anteby & Molnár, 2012; de Holan & Phillips, 2004). Recent research has demonstrated the relevance of history in the legitimization of entrepreneurs and emerging markets or categories (Khaire & Wadhwani, 2010; Kirsch et al., 2013). Historical resources however are not necessarily connected to individuals, dead or alive (Oertel & Thommes, 2015). Scholars have shown how institutional entrepreneurs use history to promote industries, products, craftsmanship and even nations through historical narratives (Hansen, 2006) and country branding (Merlo & Polese, 2006; Mordhorst, 2014).

The marketing literature has traditionally seen the use of history by corporations as a ‘commodification of the past’, i.e. enriching a commercial offer (Goulding, 2000; Peñaloza, 2000). In recent decades, however, scholars have shown greater interest in instrumental and subjective uses of the past (Lowenthal, 1998; Rowlinson & Hassard, 1993). From this perspective, organizations are seen as using the past as a resource (Rowlinson et al., 2014) to develop their brand or corporate heritage (for a review, see Pecot & De Barnier, 2017). A seminal article on corporate heritage brands by Balmer, Greyser and Urde (2006) was based on a study of monarchies and explored core precepts of corporate brand management. This study was followed by Urde, Greyser and Balmer (2007), who defined brand heritage as ‘a dimension of a brand’s identity found in its track record, longevity, core values, use of symbols and particularly in an organizational belief that its history is important’ (p. 4). Since history confers legitimacy and identity upon corporations and facilitates strategic change (Suddaby et al., 2010), brand or corporate heritage is a tool to build a strong brand value proposition (Hudson & Balmer, 2013) or reputation (Foster et al., 2011) and to connect with consumers and stakeholders (Burghausen & Balmer, 2014; Hudson & Balmer, 2013).

Recent studies on corporate heritage identity show that corporations can manage their heritage attributes in a way that connects the contemporary concerns and interests of customers and stakeholders to the past and the future of the corporation (Balmer, 2011). A further study (Burghausen & Balmer, 2014) highlighted two types of management responsibilities: corporate heritage management activities (validating, articulating, relating and adopting) and corporate heritage implementation strategies (narrating, visualizing, performing and embodying).

The studies cited above perceive history as a plastic material that can serve the intentions of strategists. However, it is difficult to determine from these studies exactly how and to what extent historical resources can be managed by organizational executives or members. We believe that HSR is a complex matter, first, as mentioned before, because history is socially constructed. Managers can use the ambiguity of history to ensure a type of control over stakeholders (Davenport & Leitch, 2005). Second, research has outlined the importance and role of individuals in managing the HSR. But even if managers decide what they do or do not want to include in the HSR, they are not alone. Multiple stakeholders are involved in its construction and management. This complex nature of the HSR is particularly challenging for issues of control and power (Fleming & Spicer, 2014).

In the next section, we present the data sources and analysis used in this research.

Methods

Empirical setting

Emmaus was created in France to provide homeless people with proper food, heating and lodging. Its leitmotiv is expressed in its slogan: ‘to reach autonomy through work’ (www.emmaus-international.org), gathering communities of ‘companions’ around a rag-picking business. As of 2017, the organization was present in 39 countries and acted as an umbrella group for hundreds of associations (see Appendix 2 for a summary of the organization’s current breadth and complexity). Emmaus’s founder, Abbé Pierre, has been an important popular figure in France, especially during the second half of the 20th century. Having served as a Catholic priest, Resistance fighter, member of parliament, and as the ‘brother of the poor’ (Le Roc’h Morgère, 2012), his multiple facets are constitutive of a saga, maintained by Abbé Pierre himself and to some extent by the organization, even after Abbé Pierre’s death. In this sense, the case of Emmaus is particularly relevant to our aims, since Abbé Pierre has been a strategic resource for the managers of Emmaus, but never an easy asset to handle.

Data sources

To explore how a HSR is managed, we collected data from different sources. Ever since Ginzburg (1979), we know that there is a huge variety of potential sources used to analyse historical facts (Lipartito, 2014). This variety allows for triangulation to build a robust set of data (Kipping, Wadhwani, & Bucheli, 2014). It also makes for greater reflexivity and critical analysis of sources.

We focused on a central data source: the archives of Emmaus and Abbé Pierre himself, which belong to the legal entity known as Emmaus International. This non-profit owns the brand and is the universal legatee of Abbé Pierre.

The archives on Abbé Pierre and Emmaus are stored at the national archives in northern France. We were able to access three types of records: documents on the internal organization of Emmaus such as reports from annual general meetings, minutes of other meetings, and activity reports; Abbé Pierre’s personal documents such as correspondence with sympathizers, local committees or Emmaus managers, notes on reports, and letters; and finally, Emmaus’s communication campaigns.

We also collected data from the websites of various constituent parts of Emmaus: Centre Abbé Pierre Emmaus of Esteville, Emmaus France, Emmaus International, Emmaus Solidarités and Fondation Abbé Pierre. This part of the data was mainly used to analyse the way the organization now reacts to the legacy of Abbé Pierre. To reinforce this understanding, we met with two key figures from the Emmaus movement: the head of Emmaus International’s archives, who joined the organization in 1977, and the Secretary General of Emmaus Solidarités. The interviews lasted 2 and 3 hours, respectively. We also visited three Emmaus communities in northern France and observed their settings and references to Abbé Pierre, in addition to briefly interviewing six volunteers on Abbé Pierre and Emmaus.

During this first data collection phase, we observed that the archives are constructed and organized by the organization itself. As pointed out by Derrida (1996), ‘archive’ etymologically refers to something from the past but also to the house of supreme magistrates, and thus cannot be disconnected from the concept of power. They do not represent neutral or exhaustive collections of historical artifacts. Indeed, we consider historical data as understood by Lipartito (2014): ‘fragments or traces of evidence from the past rather than a set of systematic observations made by the researcher’. As researchers, we have to be mindful that sources are no more than ‘remnants’ and may have been sorted more or less consciously using current professional archiving standards. Company history mainly reflects sources that are produced and selected by the organization (Ponzoni & Boersma, 2011).

To avoid the pitfall of accessing only one data source compiled by the organization itself and to build a wider conceptualization of the way a historical resource is constructed and managed by an organization (Coleman, 1987; Rowlinson & Procter, 1999), we used additional data sources such as mass media.

We collected data on Emmaus and Abbé Pierre using the French national audio-visual archives (INA). Their website contains a range of French-language audio-visual documents. We selected 124 videos and 54 audio documents using the keywords ‘Abbé Pierre’ and ‘Emmaus’. We also conducted a systematic search using the same keywords in a major French daily newspaper, Le Monde, collecting 1,201 articles. This newspaper was chosen as it is one of the oldest and most widely read in France. Additionally, we collected pictorial and rhetorical data by searching for ‘Abbé Pierre’ and ‘Emmaus’ on Google Images and Pinterest. The pictorial data comes from newspapers such as Le Monde, photo news magazine Paris Match and comic books, while the interviews and discourses on Abbé Pierre and Emmaus generally come from the websites of various affiliated organizations. Since a historical resource is not constructed solely from the textual material and discourse that constitute rhetorical history (Suddaby et al., 2010) but also from cumulative visual rhetoric (Davison, 2014), we used a visual narrative (Burke, 2006) of Abbé Pierre or one related to him. Finally, we analysed the way Emmaus International covered the 10^th anniversary of Abbé Pierre’s death and searched for French media reports of the event through Google News, gathering 31 articles.

The data focuses on the period 1949–2017. We chose to confine our data to sources produced after 1949, when Abbé Pierre founded Emmaus. Our aim was to understand how a historical resource may change after the death of a major figure. Secondary data was also used for our analysis. Abbé Pierre and Emmaus have been documented extensively, as the former was an early media favourite and inspired a huge number of publications, including comic books and TV and radio documentaries. In a search on Google Books performed on 23 February 2017, we found that the words ‘Abbé Pierre’ combined with ‘Emmaus’ had been cited in 3,210 books in English or French. In the catalogue of France’s national library, Abbé Pierre is referenced in 165 books between 1945 and 2014 (these include texts written by Abbé Pierre and published posthumously), either as a full author or as the author of a chapter. In addition, several books were written about Abbé Pierre and Emmaus. A detailed summary of our data sources is provided in Appendix 3.

Data analysis

In collecting and analysing the data, we followed the basic tenets of historical methods described by Kipping et al. (2014), that is, combining ‘source criticism, triangulation, and hermeneutic interpretation’. What is called hermeneutics here is ‘an iterative process (often referred to as the “hermeneutic circle”), which situates texts within their historical contexts and in relation to other texts’ (Kipping et al., 2014). In practice this means that documents are interpreted in relationship to other sources that establish the context. Then, using this context, we try to understand the document producer or owner’s intention or perspective. The hermeneutic circle approach, combined with a large number of sources, facilitates a more objective interpretation of the organization’s history. This contextually embedded type of analysis also helps to avoid ‘founder-centered research … descriptively portraying founders as the prime movers behind historical events’ (Rowlinson & Procter, 1999). Indeed, our intention was not to depict the story of Abbé Pierre and Emmaus per se, but to conceptually understand how a historical resource can be used by an organization, and the challenges this may create. In this goal, we concur with Coleman’s belief (1987) that business history needs to ‘go beyond the narrative method applied to the single case’ to embrace a more theoretical perspective.

The focus of hermeneutics in historical methodology is quite useful for understanding seemingly trivial aspects of our lives, with a goal of creating meaning and achieving a sense of understanding (Wilson & Hutchinson, 1991). Hermeneutics mostly refers to the analysis of textual artifacts. Since our data set contains several visual artifacts, we complemented the hermeneutic method of analysis with analysis based on the visual rhetoric method (McQuarrie & Mick, 1999; Schroeder, 2005) often used in marketing research and in history (Michel, 2008). In visual rhetoric, images create a system of symbols and are not objective. They create certain types of realities in accordance with the culture in which they are embedded. In the same way as with textual artifacts, each visual artifact was analysed within its environment and time period.

The organization of historical data is traditionally chronological. We conducted an analysis of each text or artifact first as a unique data source, and then as part of the overall data set. In doing so, we were able to identify key historical events and periods linked to the relationship between Abbé Pierre and Emmaus. From there, we established a multidimensional timeline of events. Simultaneously, through multiple readings and annotations of data, practising the hermeneutic circle mentioned above, a qualitative analysis was performed. It involved the formulation and development of a historically informed generalization framework. The latter was subject to several further rounds of examination and scrutiny, reformulated and modified with the aim of establishing a deep structural explanation of issues in the management of the HSR.

The analysis led to the simultaneous development of two complementary devices. On the one hand we fleshed out the archetypes of Abbé Pierre, to understand the sources and dimensions of HSR; on the other hand, we identified four organizational management dimensions – appropriation, ownership, maintenance and distancing – that allow us to understand how Emmaus and other organizations’ managers can deal with the challenges in handling HSR through time.

Findings

This section shows the challenges in managing a HSR within Emmaus. We relate the four dimensions of organizational management to archetypes of Abbé Pierre: the ‘charitable saint’ and the ‘rebellious founder’, shaped by various media and stakeholders, which we present below in the first section.

The stakeholders involved in the HSR around the construction of Abbé Pierre’s archetypes

The two archetypes of Abbé Pierre shape the HSR, influencing its management and adding complexity. We outline how and by whom these archetypes are shaped in order to show how the managerial dimensions are built.

In Table 1 we summarize representations of Abbé Pierre in various media (i.e. press, radio, cinema and cartoons) and list the stakeholders involved in them, including key opinion leaders, French society and Abbé Pierre himself. We give examples of how each stakeholder intervenes in constructing the HSR at different moments in time, through the use of specific artifacts, events and stories about Abbé Pierre.

Table 1.

The stakeholders involved in the shaping of the historical strategic resource.

Stakeholders involved	Archetype of the ‘charitable saint’	Archetype of the ‘rebellious founder’
Media and their effect on popular culture	Visual representations of Abbé Pierre: The first and sixth visual artifacts respectively come from Paris Match and Le Monde, a photo magazine and a daily newspaper with very wide circulation in France during our period of study. The second artifact is from the Journal de Tintin, and the fourth one is from Spirou; both are comic books with significant circulation among young audiences in the same period in France and French-speaking countries. The third and fifth visual artifacts are posters of two biopics on Abbé Pierre, both popular successes in 1955 and 1989; both films were distributed internationally (Source: EW and EI) In 2017 Direct Matin, a free newspaper with wide circulation (on average 557,000 copies per day in Paris in 2016), published: ‘Voted 16 times France’s favorite public figure, Abbé Pierre remains an icon for 78% of French people’ (AD, 22 January 2017).Published in L’Express, 25 Jan. 2007. ©Plantu, 2018. All Rights Reserved	Cartoon from a newspaper: (‘Who allowed us? Well Abbé Pierre!’ EI, 1950s) Abbé Pierre’s muppet on a national TV show (Canal Plus since 1988), always starts his speeches with the sentence ‘But it’s not possible!’ when discussing poverty or accommodation issues: In 1994, a national TV news channel reported: ‘In a visit that acts as a symbol, despite cold and rain, 82-year-old Abbé Pierre has decided to leave his Normandy retreat to fight a new battle in favour of persons living in substandard accommodation’ (INA, 18 December 1994). A TV news report on the organization Emmaus in 2001 states: ‘Even though Abbé Pierre is modest, he is the soul of Emmaus communities…’ (INA, 29 July 2001).
Key opinion leaders	Interview of Pierre Arditi, a popular French actor, on TV just after Abbé Pierre’s death: ‘I was 9 years old in 1954 … The outline of this man with his beret, this fur-lined jacket, this snow that I recall perfectly, and this discourse which was totally atypical and which was becoming a kind of divine voice…’ (INA, 22 January 2007). Roland Barthes’ iconography of Abbé Pierre in his book Mythologies: ‘The myth of the Abbé Pierre has at its disposal a precious asset: the physiognomy of the Abbé. It is a fine physiognomy, which clearly displays all the signs of apostleship: a benign expression, a Franciscan haircut, a missionary’s beard, all this made complete by the sheepskin coat of the worker-priest and the stick of the pilgrim. Thus are united the marks of legend and those of modernity’ (Barthes, 1957, p. 49). Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s speech about Abbé Pierre during a TV debate: ‘I have the quite extraordinary opportunity to talk next to someone who is going to make millions of people listen, and who can transform charity into justice … The prophet is an extraordinary character who comes out during an extraordinary situation, when in times of crisis, scarcity, shortage, when ordinary men, especially priests, don’t know what to say anymore, the prophet then talks and says things that were “repressed”. Abbé Pierre speaks with vehemence, with indignation’ (Bourdieu, 1993 in Lefèvre & Cabu, 2011). TV program ‘To Laugh for a Roof’ held on 22 December 2017 on national TV, gathering famous humorists for the benefit of the Fondation Abbé Pierre: (The artists are all wearing a T-shirt portraying Abbé Pierre and his face is constantly represented in the background of the stage. During the show, a muppet embodying him has been ‘entering into a conversation’ with the star humorist).	Children’s program depicting ‘Who is Abbé Pierre?’ (19th January 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWe826FYrTM) Bernard Kouchner’s talk: ‘Abbé Pierre is the inventor of media hype.’ (1993, L’Abbé Pierre et les Hommes)
Civil society / people	Personal letters sent to Abbé Pierre: ‘Father, I have learnt about your coming to the fraternity organization [in Benin] and about your attempts to create activities in underdeveloped countries’ (EI, 9 July 1961).* ‘We have thought about this for a long time, my wife and I, and now we are decided and would like to place ourselves in your service in a way that we hope to be definitive’* (EI, 15 December 1960).*	Tweet from a homeless person fighting against anti-homeless street furniture, and writing directly mentioning Abbé Pierre: ‘Hello everyone, Meaux Street 75019 (NB: this indicates the postal code of a popular Paris district), warm exhaust air grilles where #homeless people were sometimes sleeping. Not any more #behuman @Abbe_Pierre’ (AD, 28 December 2017).
Abbé Pierre	Opening of a 1954 movie: ‘Abbé Pierre was nice enough to tell you some words about Emmaus’ ragpickers.’ Regarding the 1990 movie, Abbé Pierre accompanied the actors in the United States and in Brazil to promote the movie. Example of a book (‘Fraternity’) published by Abbé Pierre:	A set of decisions depicting his ‘rebellious’ nature: - Enters in French Resistance (marks the beginning of his illegal activities) - 1958: Stops all financial supports to Emmaus and controls all the subventions to the organization (to ‘punish’ its managers and the Catholic church which pressure him to comply with Emmaus’ administrators) - 1987–1994: Creates the Foundation Abbé Pierre (without the agreement of Emmaus, it is perceived as a ‘concurrent’ organization) - 1995: Goes to Bosnia as a human shield (without Emmaus’ agreement) Example of a book ‘I wanted to be a sailor, a missionary or a bandit’ published by Abbé Pierre: Discussion in 1955 on the upcoming issue of Faim et Soif, Emmaus’s journal directed by Abbé Pierre: ‘The Father [i.e. Abbé Pierre] tells the Council’s members that he has asked Mr. Dauphin to delete the words ‘Director: Abbé Pierre’ from the cover of Faim & Soif since we already mention him several times in the journal and his picture often appears, and instead to put the words ‘Moderator or Founder: Abbé Pierre’. … He also adds that his op-ed to be published in issue n°5 would be focused on his thoughts during this year when he was broke and sick and when, to his delight, everything worked well anyway’ (EI, 2 February 1955).*

Abbé Pierre became an exemplar for many French people when it came to charity, having launched the insurrection de la bonté (uprising of goodness) following a speech on Radio Luxembourg on 1 February 1954, when he asked people to give their time and money to the destitute. Since then, he has been mainly depicted following two complementary archetypes: the ‘charitable saint’ and ‘rebellious founder’. This is particularly clear in his visual representations. Regarding the charitable saint, he is often portrayed in the manner of the renaissance Pietà or as Saint Francis of Assisi (Barthes, 1957), surrounded by children or the poor, arms outstretched or with bent head in a devoted manner. Strikingly, while most priests had abandoned the cassock in France by 1980, Abbé Pierre continued to wear it, making him stand out by the 1980s and 1990s. His silhouette was iconic early on: a short and thin young man with a black beard, black beret, black wool cape and a walking stick. These visual representations are complemented by the media, key opinion leaders and society, which depict him as a prophet and a simple man, materializing through him values inscribed in a religious setting (i.e. charity, kindness, simplicity, integrity, evangelization), thereby inciting faith in his personality and actions. Abbé Pierre’s funeral reinforced his saintly image in French popular culture. He was given a national tribute at the Notre Dame in Paris, with the President of the Republic attending, as well as politicians, artists, key religious representatives and about 1,200 Emmaus companions. A giant screen was set up outside for those who could not find a seat (LM, 2007). As shown in Table 1, various stakeholders have pursued the construction of this archetype even after Abbé Pierre’s death.

Regarding the archetype of the rebellious founder, visual representations focus on his intrepid image, depicting him with a raised hand, pushing away opportunistic or contemptible people such as politicians. Several stakeholders value this image of a rebel. For society, popular culture and the media, Abbé Pierre is a public figure who defends forgotten people and causes. For example, he went on hunger strike to demand that illegal migrants be given legal resident status. He was personally involved in many fights against injustice and racism, and always supported human rights. Abbé Pierre believed Emmaus had a rebellious spirit, in that it defended human rights against laws and conventions (Brodiez-Dolino, 2008). However, in the 1990s, Abbé Pierre started to move away from Emmaus by supporting competing charities such as Droit au logement (DAL, an association defending legal accommodation rights) with a more radical stance (Lévy-Vroelant, 2015).

Abbé Pierre extensively managed his own image and future rhetoric regarding both archetypes. The first important movie about him and the organization was shot in 1955 based on a book by Boris Simon (Simon, 1955) entitled Abbé Pierre and the Ragpickers of Emmaus. The movie begins with Abbé Pierre – as himself in full regalia (beard, cassock overcoat, etc.) and in a modest setting – insisting that ‘everything is true’ in the movie. The second important movie was a 1989 biopic entitled Hiver 54, Abbé Pierre. Abbé Pierre served as special adviser on the set, meeting several times with the main actor, Lambert Wilson, who played his role. Abbé Pierre was also very present in the media, communicating his message to various audiences, as is clear from the numerous TV and radio archives maintained by INA (see Appendix 3).

Understanding these two archetypes, and especially the way they have been shaped by various stakeholders and Abbé Pierre, allows us to appreciate the complexities and challenges the organization has faced in managing the HSR.

Implementing management dimensions to deal with complexHSR

The four organizational management dimensions – appropriation, ownership, maintenance, distancing – can occasionally overlap, depending on the issues facing the organization, as shown in Figure 1. They reveal power disruptions and difficulties for the organization in exerting stable control over the HSR because of the resource’s construction by various external stakeholders too. Each dimension is discussed in detail next.

Figure 1.

The implementation of management dimensions.

Appropriation

Appropriation can be described as an organizational dimension of action on dispersed elements to construct a relatively simple historical narrative.

In our case, appropriation is particularly embodied in the founding event of Emmaus. Abbé Pierre’s encounter with a convict persuaded him of the need to create an organization devoted to helping the destitute. This story is often recounted in Emmaus’s communications, external and internal, to depict both the spontaneity and grandness of Emmaus’s creation:

It was on an autumn morning in 1950 [sic] that the Emmaus movement was born, which today has spread to all of the world’s continents. Abbé Pierre, then a member of the French Parliament, was called to the bedside of a convict who had been freed from prison after 20 years and had just attempted to commit suicide. Abbé Pierre told him: ‘I cannot give you anything. All that I have is spent in order to help families who have no place to live. But you, who are entirely free, as you wanted to die, would you help me to help others?’ By the miracle of friendship, he who had been humiliated discovered that he was no longer supported, but was going to be a donor. (EI, 1966–1967)*

In this recounting, Abbé Pierre is depicted as the only person who responded to the distress of this man. This particular version was used when Emmaus was seeking new prospects and wanted to communicate to an external audience. It was often retold to members of the organization as in an internal document containing Emmaus’s organizational chart in 1994. Here, Abbé Pierre appeared at the top of the chart as the ‘founder’ and ‘honorary president’ with the following quote next to it: ‘Abbé Pierre welcomes Georges, a man in desperation, to his house in Neuilly-Plaisance, and creates the first Emmaus community’ (EI, 22–23 April 1994). This wording is typical of the inscriptions found in visual representations of episodes from Vita Sanctae, traditional Catholic narratives about the lives of saints.

Today, despite being a secular organization, Emmaus continues to advocate Abbé Pierre as its founder and his encounter with Georges as its founding event. Such storytelling appears on the history section of the Emmaus France website: ‘Abbé Pierre … is at the origin of a Movement that today gathers 18,000 people. An unusual priest, a favourite character of the French for long, he has managed to create a Movement founded on an original view.’ The text then recounts the founding events of 1949 in much the same way as in the quote above. In 1949, Abbé Pierre is called to the side of a former convict who has just attempted suicide, and confronted with his despair, he will tell him this founding sentence for the Emmaus movement: ‘I cannot give you anything. But you, who are are entirely free, as you wanted to die, would you help me to help others?’’ Next to this description is a picture of a man carrying a sign that says: ‘Thanks Abbé. You have been a rebel and have fought for humanity!’

These accounts clearly echo the archetypes of charitable saint and rebellious founder and make use of appropriation to highlight his empathy and courage. The same archetypes also appear in other managerial dimensions, adding considerable complexity to their management.

Ownership

Ownership of resources is connected to RBT, which claims that resources have to be valuable, rare and difficult or costly to imitate in order to generate competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). In the case of HSR, ownership is a challenge for organizations. Just as for public goods, individuals cannot be excluded from using historical resources and the use of such a resource by one individual does not reduce its availability to others. Hence, organizations have to rely on alternative mechanisms of control. One such mechanism is intellectual property rights over representations and names. In the case of Abbé Pierre and Emmaus, both have been active in ownership initiatives. The name Abbé Pierre was registered by Henri Grouès himself in May 1989 in several trademark classes (recycling, publishing, housing, entertainment, etc.) and transferred to Emmaus International in 1999. The organization controls the personal archives, the Esteville mansion and the associated museum. Every year since Abbé Pierre’s death, a ceremony has been held to celebrate his memory, and the annual visit to his house in Normandy is akin to a pilgrimage (EM, 2016).

Although Emmaus International owns the intellectual property and copyright for Abbé Pierre’s image, the Foundation Abbé Pierre, a branch of Emmaus, has registered some brands for its own use including a logo with a silhouette of Abbé Pierre complete with cape and beret (Figure 2). The Foundation created a new logo on the 10^th anniversary of Abbé Pierre’s death which zoomed in on his face, ‘reviving the face and soul of its founder’, explained one newspaper article (AD, 19 January 2017).

Figure 2.

Logo and communication campaign for Fondation Abbé Pierre.

Indeed, the archetype of the charitable saint has become embedded in popular culture in France and abroad (Barthes, 1957), and is so widely recognized that hardly any voice can challenge his representation as a charitable and modern ‘prophet’ (LM, 17 January 1995). Although this notion is an asset for Emmaus, it is also a liability, as the image of Abbé Pierre is considered untouchable by French people. For example, the Emmaus leadership and many French politicians commemorated his legacy and used his name to open a debate on poverty on the 10^th anniversary of his death.

Control of the ownership of this HSR is made difficult since history is a public good. Several individuals and associations not affiliated with Emmaus use the story and image of Abbé Pierre, as he is widely considered a public figure on a par with Joan of Arc. Emmaus International is mindful of respecting the memory of Abbé Pierre while avoiding the temptation of reification: ‘There are Abbé Pierre tee shirts.’ But ‘there will never be mouse mats or key-rings’, warns S. Benjamin, in charge of the memory, status and archives department within Emmaus International. ‘The idea is not to establish a personality cult … All our communication work is about creating a link with his activism’ (AD, 19 January 2017). This approach is not so easy when it comes to the way local Emmaus communities use this HSR. Most still use the image or name of Abbé Pierre, as illustrated in Figure 3, which shows the entrance to a sale with a sign reading ‘Village Abbé Pierre’, organized by the Emmaus community in Wambrechies (northern France). Another sign with the image can be seen advertising a sale run by the Emmaus community in Grenoble.

Figure 3.

Communication campaigns run by local Emmaus communities.

Such initiatives are used because Abbé Pierre appeals more to people than the name Emmaus alone. A manager of a community in northern France confirmed:

We have been lucky to have Abbé Pierre, otherwise we wouldn’t exist … We don’t depend on Emmaus France. When we talk about Emmaus here, it’s Emmaus Tourcoing [name of the city]. In Wambrechies [i.e. other city], they have another way to work. We meet but we don’t have the same vision … Each community is specific. The common point is Abbé Pierre. (EM, December 2017)

This independence and autonomy echoes the character that Abbé Pierre gave to Emmaus, favoring a flexible management, and reflecting the ‘rebel’ image constitutive of one of his archetypes.

The dimension of ownership highlights the ambivalence in managing the HSR, partly due to the absence of coordination or common purpose among the various stakeholders.

Maintenance

This dimension is related to the way in which, over time, the organization preserves, enriches and transmits features and values generated by the HSR. These features are regularly used by the organization to emphasize its identity and objectives, as in its 1989–1990 annual report:

The purpose of Emmaus France … is to use actions and discourse to nurture and promote the dynamic of the Emmaus movement, following the path of Abbé Pierre: awaken consciousness … fight the fatality of misery, support the most disadvantaged in their fight for dignity. (EI, 1989–1990)*

Emmaus often uses these references to cement the organization, especially when there may be tensions within branches of the organization, or when it seeks to conform to external perceptions of Emmaus. For this purpose, not only are the values propounded by Abbé Pierre used, but also his charitable behaviour and his portrayal as a founder.

The importance of the HSR, particularly embodied in the archetypes of the charitable saint and the rebellious founder, has been reaffirmed through the nominations of Emmaus’s presidents. Abbé Pierre gave up the presidency of Emmaus in March 1959 (EI, 21 March 1959). In 2004, Martin Hirsch, Emmaus’s president, said in a broadcast, while sitting next to Abbé Pierre: ‘The main gift, the only gift that the Emmaus movement can make to its founder is to say that the fight continues’ (INA, 31 January 2004). This example shows that the ‘transfer of power’ is only possible if Abbé Pierre confers his legitimacy and aura on the new president. This was also true following Abbé Pierre’s death. In 2014, Thierry Kuhn took over from Martin Hirsch as president. When asked, ‘What do you hope to bring to Emmaus?’ he responded, ‘I want to pursue what Abbé Pierre was hoping to do and what we may have lost a little bit these last years’ (EW, 5 August 2014).

It is worth noting that Abbé Pierre was careful to acknowledge the legitimacy of the organization’s acting presidents and to argue in favour of a separation between himself and the organization’s development, as shown by this quote from a board meeting:

Abbé Pierre says he is happy about the Légion d’Honneur given to Raymond Etienne, President of Emmaus France … For him, this award is particularly important because it honours the President currently working for a movement of national utility, and is indicative of the recognition of this movement beyond the ‘Abbé Pierre’ legend. (EI, 29–30 May 1992)*

He even publicly declared that the most important thing for Emmaus was to maintain the loyalty of its workers and donors and ‘to not idolise’ him (INA, 29 July 2001).

In the 1950s, Abbé Pierre was clearly mentioned as the founder and director of Emmaus on all the organization’s documents (EI, 1954–1958). Yet, he gradually decided to distance himself from these responsibilities. Indeed, Abbé Pierre had a personal agenda distinct from that of Emmaus. From the beginning, he made sure that he was not the organization’s only representative, as is clear from a discussion in 1955 on the upcoming issue of Faim et Soif, Emmaus’s journal directed by Abbé Pierre:

The Father [i.e. Abbé Pierre] tells the Council’s members that he has asked Mr. Dauphin to delete the words ‘Director: Abbé Pierre’ from the cover of Faim & Soif since we already mention him several times in the journal and his picture appears frequently. Instead we should put the words ‘Moderator or Founder: Abbé Pierre’. … He also adds that his op-ed to be published in issue n°5 would be focused on his thoughts during this year when he was broke and sick and when, to his delight, everything worked well anyway. (EI, 2 February 1955)*

This quote exemplifies Abbé Pierre’s attitude towards the organization, which was in keeping with his image as the rebellious founder. As such, Abbé Pierre and his foundation repeatedly used the name Emmaus to sign press releases to denounce various social injustices, despite opposition from Emmaus France (Brodiez-Dolino, 2008). These actions provoked strong reactions within the organization, and board meetings in the 1990s became a platform to discuss the relevance of associating Abbé Pierre with Emmaus’s activities.

Abbé Pierre often adopted an ambiguous position on his importance within the organization. This appears in a discussion during the 1995 AGM between Abbé Pierre and Raymond Etienne, then president of Emmaus:

Abbé Pierre: Another point, very secondary, but I have this weight on my heart: I haven’t come very often to Emmaus France [i.e. national board meeting], it’s not right, I should have come more often. But I believe that each time you asked me, I came. Yet the last time I came, I heard one of you, after congratulating and flattering me a lot, saying …: ‘What is he still doing here, the old man?’*

Raymond Etienne: Thank you Father, it is true that we don’t call you to fix our small daily problems, but we regularly come to see you at Esteville, to ask you important questions and you are always there to respond. Thank you for your presence and … you can ask God for a few more years … to work with us. (INA, 5–6 May 1995)

This interesting discussion reveals the challenge faced by the organization due to Abbé Pierre’s presence. Although he was no longer president, he reminded those present of his special status and historic legitimacy. Etienne’s response shows that Emmaus had learned to carry out its daily operations without Abbé Pierre, but that his advice was still valued. This discussion also shows that Abbé Pierre made a point of questioning their view of his status during a meeting with Emmaus’s entire management team. He alluded to the position of the organization, which at times needed him and at others distanced itself from him.

The archives also show that people in the organization complained about the lack of change at Emmaus, such as guarantees of autonomy for some of the branches (EI, 1960). Others disparaged the lack of organizational focus (EI, 1956). Even when Abbé Pierre was still alive, questions emerged about his legitimacy and what the movement meant without him. Some even criticized the disparity between his dreams and the reality of structuring the movement, as an anonymous report points out:

As you were saying, it is impossible to contain in a strictly administrative and logical structure what is almost purely a psychological, spiritual and even psychiatric phenomenon. I don’t think that a ‘movement’ can be structured like a company without the risk of becoming rigid and losing sight of its ideals. (EI, 1956)*

The same report further criticizes the lack of stability due to provisional decisions:

During two euphoric years, we acquired, rented or bought plenty of houses and we created departments that we now have to run without being able to control them. This frenzy of creating multiple foundations may be due to Paul [Abbé Pierre’s companion acting as manager] … [Businesses] either stagnate or, worse, are opportunities for trafficking or other scandals … There is also the temptation to do as well or better than others in fields that are not ours. This is true of the youth hostel, which is in a disastrous condition. (EI, 1956)*

The report particularly criticizes Abbé Pierre for protecting, or even encouraging, these activities and launching too many initiatives without establishing and organizing them over time. Finally, the report encourages reflection on the future of Emmaus, emphasizing ‘autonomy’ and imploring ‘as much as possible, to de-personalize this authority and limit … the systematic use of the “Father” which is quite detrimental to Emmaus’ (EI, 1956).

The ‘charitable saint’ archetype further complicates issues by creating a distance between the charismatic and inviolable founder and efforts to construct a sustainable organization. A media report from 1976 says: ‘The Abbé Pierre movement will only be a flash in the pan: all will soon be forgotten because of the lack of organized political action. Homeless people will return to the shadows’ (EI, 23 June 1976, pp. 75–76)*. Even though in hindsight we know that Emmaus has managed to organize itself, the sainthood associated with Abbé Pierre has occasionally threatened the organization, as the next sections show.

The leadership of the organization often recalls that Abbé Pierre, dead or alive, has had an important place within the movement since initiating it. They were more ambivalent about his rebellious nature, however. On one hand, members and managers in the organization glorified it, pointing to Abbé Pierre’s actions as a rebel, especially in the Resistance during the Second World War. On the other hand, his rebellious nature led him to act on his own. On several occasions he contradicted what was perceived as the organization’s best interests, for example, when he supported competing or more radical charities.

Distancing

Distancing is related to the detachment or at least partial divestment the organization seeks for itself from the historical resource when it may no longer be considered valuable, rare or inimitable. In the 1950s, some internal reports were already questioning the value of Abbé Pierre as a resource:

Initially … people were simply sympathetic towards the actions of Abbé Pierre, but now they … are interested in the themes addressed in Faim et Soif and are attentive to our campaigns … Any sales in the name of Abbé Pierre … would be damaging to the sale of our journal. (EI, 1 March 1958)*

One of the main motives for Emmaus to distance itself from its HSR is the need for the organization to be recognized as its own entity and not as the property of Abbé Pierre. Even though Abbé Pierre remains the founder of Emmaus, his position is often debated and questioned. Internal documents show that changes were made to his organizational titles. For example, in the late 1950s he was ‘moderator’ of Emmaus (EI, 30 January 1959), while in the late 1980s he was a ‘board member’ (EI, 20 June 1991).

Another reason for Emmaus to distance itself from its HSR is the fact that Abbé Pierre was gravely ill. This fact was regularly reported by the media, and he was also urged to stay away from Emmaus (LM, 3 November 1954; LM, 17 July 1963). The organization was forced to deal with the scarcity of its historical resource incarnate, and sought ways to develop without him. This effort is made clear from a section in an internal report devoted to the organization’s concerns about the future:

The ‘post-Abbé Pierre’ period: are we adult enough to handle it? Non-recognition of Emmaus France by some groups in legal disputes. These groups fall back on Abbé Pierre. (EI, 19 November 1987)*

The same type of question arose during the 1989 AGM:

One challenge: to set up a ‘national team’ that would be recognized by everyone. … First obstacle: an authority that doesn’t have legitimacy yet. The majority of Emmaus’ members in France … implicitly or explicitly refer to the charismatic authority of the Father. Charisma cannot be transmitted. (EI, 8–9 December 1989)*

The natural charisma and authority of Abbé Pierre to which this quote refers is also evident in the way Emmaus has been shaped. At a very early stage, the association faced tensions between the organic model of development through autonomous grassroots communities and the urge to organize itself at a national level (Brodiez-Dolino, 2008).

The Father has reminded us to stay faithful, or return, to our roots. The increasing number and dispersion of communities impede direct contact. Yet the branches of our common trunk, Emmaus, shouldn’t develop faster than its roots. (EI, 11–12 May 1956)*

In the 1960s and 1970s Emmaus again faced the same tensions. Abbé Pierre’s frequent absences as he travelled abroad for work and his reluctant management of the organization were stifling for the organization’s development. In choosing not to take sides between local communities resisting managerial ambitions for formalization and the organization itself, Abbé Pierre provided little cohesion.

Finally, the instability of this HSR is profoundly evident in a major scandal that damaged Abbé Pierre’s reputation. In 1995, a long-time friend, writer and former Communist politician Roger Garaudy (Anonymous, 2012) published The Founding Myths of Modern Israel (Garaudy, 2000), an anti-Zionist book denying the Holocaust. Although Garaudy was eventually convicted in 1998 of negationism, Abbé Pierre publicly defended him during the scandal (Brodiez-Dolino, 2008). His position led to his dismissal from the honorary committee of the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA). Emmaus was forced to make a statement. As one journalist put it:

He [Abbé Pierre] is implicitly blacklisted by the association he has created. Public and private pressure has steered a wholesome and generous man outside his and our field … The fact that he can appear in support of an indefensible thesis is unacceptable. (INA, 14 May 1996)

This scandal was widely covered and was even connected, according to some (Johnson, 2007), to the Vatican’s decision not to canonize Abbé Pierre. Despite several requests, Abbé Pierre refused to relent on the Garaudy scandal. Opinions were divergent at this time, with some describing Abbé Pierre as ‘having the mentality of a 19^th-century country priest fed by anti-Judaism’ (LM, 30 April 1996), while others defended him for being ‘in a moment of distraction’ which should be forgiven considering all his charitable actions (LM, 20 May 1996). Emmaus invoked the priest’s old age and candour in an effort to explain his behaviour. This event reveals the difficulties an organization faces in managing an unstable HSR.

Abbé Pierre’s death in 2007 did not make matters easier. The organization felt the need to distance itself from him but was also aware of his relevance and importance for the people. This ambivalence is particularly visible on the Emmaus France website (EW, 2017). There is no mention of Abbé Pierre in the logo, in the main message or on the homepage. He is only referred to in a small paragraph describing the foundation of the organization. On the organization’s Twitter page, however, his picture is used as the profile image with the sentence ‘ten years already’, referring to the anniversary of his death (EW, 2017). The same image is used on Emmaus’s Facebook page, the last news being the commemoration of the 11^th anniversary of his death in Esteville with the paean ‘Always present’ (EW, 2017).

Discussion and Conclusion

This research explores the management of a HSR that is not fully shaped by the organization, and is characterized by great complexity. Based on our literature review, we propose that the HSR is both an asset and an arena for a power struggle. Our research addressed the following two questions: What are the sources and dimensions of a HSR? And considering their diversity and complexity, what are the specific challenges in managing a HSR?

Our contributions apply to several areas of inquiry and practice. We first show the importance of various stakeholders in constructing an HSR. In the literatures on corporate heritage (Burghausen & Balmer, 2014; Hudson & Balmer, 2013), strategic management and organization studies, resources are seen as being used and manipulated by managers (Suddaby et al., 2010), who maintain tight control over them. In the case of HSR, the resource is socially constructed by managers as well as by multiple direct stakeholders in the organization (employees, local communities and beneficiaries), its indirect stakeholders (opinion leaders, media and the public), and in our case, the HSR himself. For example, we have shown that some of the organization’s local communities used the image of Abbé Pierre for charitable sales without consulting the top management at Emmaus. The existence of these multiple voices constructing the HSR creates organizational tensions, as the management cannot always control these voices.

The organizational management dimensions we identify can help in analysing and understanding these multiple (sometimes conflicting) voices and their motives. One particularity of the HSR is the fact that it is akin to a public good. In a democratic society it is difficult for organizations to privatize visual and rhetorical artifacts, symbols and stories. Efforts to restrict access are limited to intellectual property and management of the organization’s records. As our findings show, despite being the legal proprietor of Abbé Pierre’s brand, Emmaus has problems in enforcing this control. In 1995 when Abbé Pierre joined the efforts of the more radical DAL movement championing the homeless, the latter made liberal use of the names ‘Abbé Pierre’ and ‘Emmaus’. Because of the presence of Abbé Pierre himself in the DAL demonstrations, the Emmaus organization found itself unable to respond officially (Desmard & Etienne, 2012, p. 340). In this episode, licence to the historical resource (i.e. media attention and potential donations) was captured by a competing organization. Privatizing or monopolizing a HSR is more difficult in the context of a pluralistic organization and when concerning the archetype of a charitable saint.

The second contribution, strongly related to the first, highlights the complexity of a HSR arising from being imbued with history. In the literature, strategic resources are often presented as stable and neutral. Even though RBT’s early objective was not managerial prescription but to explain differences in firm performance (Barney, 2005), a common critique is RBT’s tendency to overestimate the extent to which managers can control resources or predict their future value (Kraaijenbrink, Spender, & Groen, 2010, p. 350). Their supposed stability makes them more manageable. In the case of a HSR, the plastic nature of historical narratives and the plurality of voices in the construction of history make it a relatively complex asset to manage.

Looking at a strategic resource as human capital (Coff & Kryscynski, 2011), we can see how the autonomy of the HSR can be a challenge to the organization, for example, when Abbé Pierre tolerated poor ethical conduct among managers in the early days of the organization, or quit the organization, or espoused values that contradict those of the organization. But Abbé Pierre is only one component of the HSR, which also includes past events, stories, artifacts and archetypes, and therefore we have to look beyond the human capital lens RBT to better understand how to manage a HSR. Abbé Pierre as a HSR thrived beyond the man’s actual presence and death. Abbé Pierre was very often absent from the organization between 1954 and the 1990s, and his name and legacy have been appropriated after his death by the Emmaus organization and other stakeholders.

We propose that organizations use four management dimensions to manage HSR – appropriation, ownership, maintenance and distancing. Although a strategic resource can be more easily used and owned by the organization after the death of the historical figure, death renders the archetypes of charitable saint and rebellious founder even more immutable, lending them a sense of infallibility and even a legendary scope in the eyes of various stakeholders. The historical significance of the strategic resource creates a complexity in its management even after the passing of the resource.

The management dimensions we have identified complement the literature on crisis communication for organizations. Research has often looked at the discursive rhetoric an organization can use to restore its legitimacy or reputation (Livesey, 2001). We believe that the management dimensions of the HSR can help an organization to restore its reputation in a situation of crisis.

The managerial dimensions in our research differ from the corporate heritage identity management activities or implementation strategies highlighted in the literature (Burghausen & Balmer, 2014). While these activities and strategies correspond to the management responsibilities of senior managers when it comes to corporate heritage, the organizational management dimensions discussed here concern managing the complexity of a HSR. These dimensions have to do with the use of power as a form of subjectification in the organization (Fleming & Spicer, 2014).

These contributions notwithstanding, we acknowledge the limitations of this study. First, our case study relates to a unique organization and a HSR tightly connected to an individual character (its founder). Although narrow in its focus, we believe it is a justifiable first step towards gaining a full understanding of how HSR are constructed and what kind of challenges they may create for managers. Second, the nature of the historical records used – mostly originating from Abbé Pierre and Emmaus – influenced the research findings even though we have diversified our data through multiple sources. Further research in the area of the historical dimension of RBT can expand the scholarly understanding of these critical topics within the strategic management and organizational literature and improve our understanding of organizational uses of the past.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Acknowledgements

The authors contributed equally to this research. They owe thanks to many friends and colleagues for discussions and feedback in relation to various drafts of this article and most notably to Benoit Demil. They are also very grateful for feedback on presentations of this project at Copenhagen Business School, Edhec Business School, the University of Lille and Skema Business School and for the help from the people working at Archives Nationales du Monde du Travail in Roubaix. They would also like to express their gratitude to the editors of this special issue and their anonymous Organization Studies reviewers for their guidance and very helpful feedback. The responsibility for the ideas expressed in this paper is entirely the authors’ own.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Author biographies

Ludovic Cailluet is professor of strategic management and business history at Edhec Business School in Lille and Paris, France. He earned his PhD at the University of Lyon. His research aims at understanding the uses of the past in the practices of strategists. He also works on the role of emotions in family business strategizing. His papers have been published in, among others, Accounting, Business and Financial History, British Journal of Management, Business History Review, Entreprises et Histoire and Long Range Planning.

Hélène Gorge is associate professor at ILIS-University of Lille, France. She is a member of the research centre LSMRC, EA 4112 (University of Lille, Skema Business School). Her research uses historical and sociological approaches to explore the transformative nature of consumption in various contexts: poverty, health and sustainability. She has published on these themes in Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Journal of Macromarketing, Journal of Marketing Management and Journal of Services Marketing.

Nil Özçaglar-Toulouse is professor of marketing at the University of Lille and Skema Business School. She is a member of the research centre LSMRC, EA 4112 (University of Lille, Skema Business School). Her research topics focus on theoretical issues in transformative research and in consumer culture theory (consumer resistance, ethical consumption, acculturation, identity projects); with public policy implications (e.g. immigration, fair trade, sustainable development). Her research has appeared in, among others, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Marketing Theory, Consumption, Markets and Culture, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Business Ethics and Journal of Marketing Management.

References

Anonymous. (2012). Roger Garaudy: Veteran of the Resistance who later became a Holocaust denier. The Independent, 25 June 2012. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/roger-garaudy-veteran-of-the-resistance-who-later-became-a-holocaust-denier-7879645.html

Anteby

Molnár

(2012). Collective memory meets organizational identity: Remembering to forget in a firm’s rhetorical history. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 515–540.

Balmer

J. M.

(2011). Corporate heritage identities, corporate heritage brands and the multiple heritage identities of the British monarchy. European Journal of Marketing, 45, 1380–1398.

Balmer

J. M.

Greyser

Urde

(2006). The Crown as a corporate brand: Insights from monarchies. Journal of Brand Management, 14, 137–161.

Barney

J. B.

(1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

Barney

J. B.

(2005). Where does inequality come from? The personal and intellectual roots of resource-based theory. In

S. K. G.

Hitt

M. A.

(Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 280–303). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barney

J. B.

Hesterly

W. S.

(2005). Strategic management and competitive advantage: Concepts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Barthes

(1957). The Iconography of Abbé Pierre (A. Lavers, Trans.) Mythologies (pp. 39–41). New York: Hill & Wang.

Bhattacharya

Wright

P. M.

(2005). Managing human assets in an uncertain world: Applying real options theory to HRM. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 929–948.

10.

Brodiez-Dolino

(2008). Emmaüs et l’Abbé Pierre. Paris: Les presses de SciencesPo.

11.

Brunninge

(2009). Using history in organizations: How managers make purposeful reference to history in strategy processes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22, 8–26.

12.

Bucheli

Wadhwani

R. D.

(2014). The future of the past in management and organizational studies. In Bucheli

Wadhwani

R. D.

(Eds.), Organizations in time: History, theory, methods (pp. 3–30): Oxford University Press on demand.

13.

Burghausen

Balmer

J. M.

(2014). Corporate heritage identity management and the multi-modal implementation of a corporate heritage identity. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2311–2323.

14.

Burke

(2006). Eyewitnessing: The uses of images as historical evidence. London: Reaktion Books.

15.

Coff

(1997). Human assets and management dilemmas: Coping with hazards on the road to resource-based theory. Academy of Management Review, 22, 374–402.

16.

Coff

Kryscynski

(2011). Invited editorial: Drilling for micro-foundations of human capital-based competitive advantages. Journal of Management, 37, 1429–1443.

17.

Coleman

(1987). The uses and abuses of business history. Business History, 29, 141–156.

18.

Davenport

Leitch

(2005). Circuits of power in practice: Strategic ambiguity as delegation of authority. Organization Studies, 26, 1603–1623.

19.

Davison

(2014). Visual rhetoric and the case of intellectual capital. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39, 20–37.

20.

de Holan

P. M.

Phillips

. (2004). Organizational forgetting as strategy. Strategic Organization, 2, 423–433.

21.

Derrida

(1996). Archive fever: A Freudian impression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Desmard

Etienne

(2012). L’Abbé Pierre, fondateur et rebelle: Desclée de Brouwer.

23.

Fleming

Spicer

(2014). Power in management and organization science. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 237–298.

24.

Foster

W. M.

Suddaby

Minkus

Wiebe

(2011). History as social memory assets: The example of Tim Hortons. Management & Organizational History, 6, 101–120.

25.

Garaudy

(2000). The founding myths of Israel. Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review.

26.

Ginzburg

(1979). Clues: Roots of a scientific paradigm. Theory and Society, 7, 273–288.

27.

Gioia

D. A.

Patvardhan

S. D.

Hamilton

A. L.

Corley

K. G.

(2013). Organizational identity formation and change. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 123.

28.

Goulding

(2000). The commodification of the past, postmodern pastiche, and the search for authentic experiences at contemporary heritage attractions. European Journal of Marketing, 34, 835–853.

29.

Hansen

P. H.

(2006). Networks, narratives, and new markets: The rise and decline of Danish modern furniture design, 1930–1970. Business History Review, 80, 449–483.

30.

Hobsbawm

Ranger

(1983). The invention of tradition: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Hudson

Balmer

J. M.

(2013). Corporate heritage brands: Mead’s theory of the past. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18, 347–361.

32.

James

(2001). The Deutsche Bank and the Nazi economic war against the Jews: The expropriation of Jewish-owned property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Johnson

(2007). Obituary: Abbé Pierre. The Guardian, 23 January 2007.

34.

Kahl

S. J.

Silverman

B. S.

Cusumano

M. A.

(2012). The integration of history and strategy research. History and Strategy, Advances in Strategic Management, 29.

35.

Khaire

Wadhwani

D. R.

(2010). Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and value in a new market category—Modern Indian art. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1281–1304.

36.

Kipping

Üsdiken

(2009). Business history and management studies. In Jones

Zeitlin

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business history (pp. 96–119). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

37.

Kipping

Wadhwani

R. D.

Bucheli

(2014). Analyzing and interpreting historical sources: a basic methodology. In Bucheli

Wadhwani

R. D.

(Eds.), Organizations in time: History, theory, methods (pp. 305–329). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

38.

Kirsch

Moeen

Wadhwani

R. D.

(2013). Historicism and industry emergence: Industry knowledge from pre-emergence to stylized fact. In Bucheli

Wadhwani

R. D.

(Eds.), Organizations in time: History, theory, methods (pp. 217–240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

39.

Kraaijenbrink

Spender

J.-C.

Groen

A. J.

(2010). The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of Management, 36(1), 349–372.

40.

Le Roc’h Morgère

. (2012). L’abbé Pierre 1912–2007: ‘Frère des pauvres, provocateur de paix’, exposition, Archives nationales du monde du travail, Roubaix, 15 décembre 2012–16 mars 2013. Roubaix: Archives Nationales du Monde du Travail.

41.

Lefèvre

Cabu (2011). Les Combats De L’abbé Pierre [in French]. Collections Documents. Paris: Cherche midi.

42.

Lévy-Vroelant

(2015). The right to housing in France: Still a long way to go from intention to implementation. Journal of Law & Social Policy, 24, i.

43.

Lipartito

(2014). Historical sources and data. In Bucheli

Wadhwani

R. D.

(Eds.), Organizations in time : History, theory, methods (pp. 284–304). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

44.

Livesey

S. M.

(2001). Eco-identity as discursive struggle: Royal Dutch/Shell, Brent Spar, and Nigeria. Journal of Business Communication (1973), 38(1), 58–91.

45.

Lowenthal

(1998). Fabricating heritage. History & Memory, 10(1), 5–24.

46.

McQuarrie

E. F.

Mick

D. G.

(1999). Visual rhetoric in advertising: Text-interpretive, experimental, and reader-response analyses. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 37–54.

47.

Merlo

Polese

(2006). Turning fashion into business: The emergence of Milan as an international fashion hub. Business History Review, 80, 415–447.

48.

Michel

A. P.

(2008). An Image mise en abyme. Technology and Culture, 49, 967–973.

49.

Mordhorst

(2014). Arla and Danish national identity: –Business history as cultural history. Business History, 56, 116–133.

50.

Oertel

Thommes

(2015). Making history: Sources of organizational history and its rhetorical construction. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31, 549–560.

51.

Pecot

De Barnier

(2017). Brand heritage: The past in the service of brand management. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 32 (March), 72–90.

52.

Peñaloza

(2000). The commodification of the American West: Marketers’ production of cultural meanings at the trade show. Journal of Marketing, 64(October), 82–109.

53.

Penrose

E. T.

(1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.

54.

Ponzoni

Boersma

(2011). Writing history for business: The development of business history between ‘old’and ‘new’production of knowledge. Management & Organizational History, 6, 123–143.

55.

Rowlinson

Booth

Clark

Delahaye

Procter

(2010). Social remembering and organizational memory. Organization Studies, 31, 69–87.

56.

Rowlinson

Hassard

(1993). The invention of corporate culture: A history of the histories of Cadbury. Human Relations, 46, 299–326.

57.

Rowlinson

Hassard

Decker

(2014). Research strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 39, 250–274.

58.

Rowlinson

Procter

(1999). Organizational culture and business history. Organization Studies, 20, 369–396.

59.

Schroeder

J. E.

(2005). Visual consumption (Vol. 4). London: Psychology Press.

60.

Scranton

Fridenson

(2013). Reimagining business history. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

61.

Simon

(1955). Abbé Pierre and the ragpickers of Emmaus ( Noel

, Trans.). New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons.

62.

Suddaby

Foster

W. M.

Trank

C. Q.

(2010). Rhetorical history as a source of competitive advantage. Advances in Strategic Management, 27, 147–173.

63.

Urde

Greyser

S. A.

Balmer

J. M.

(2007). Corporate brands with a heritage. Journal of Brand Management, 15(1), 4–19.

64.

Verbitsky

Bohoslavsky

J. P.

(2015). The economic accomplices to the Argentine dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

65.

Wilson

H. S.

Hutchinson

S. A.

(1991). Triangulation of qualitative methods: Heideggerian hermeneutics and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 1(2), 263–276.

66.

Wubs

(2008). International business and national war interests: Unilever between Reich and empire, 1939–45. London: Routledge.

67.

Ybema

(2014). The invention of transitions: History as a symbolic site for discursive struggles over organizational change. Organization, 21, 495–513.

68.

Zundel

Holt

Popp

(2016). Using history in the creation of organizational identity. Management & Organizational History, 1–25.