Ludovic Cailluet: ‘When constructing narratives about and around brands, historians must remain impartial “third parties” and not simply be providers of storytelling’

You immediately place your work within the framework proposed by Paul Ricoeur. Perhaps you could start there?

Together with my co-authors, Fatima Regany and Hélène Gorge (University of Lille), we start with Ricœur because he offers a very concrete ethical compass for analysing how organisations use the past. He distinguishes between three forms of ‘abuse’ — repressed, manipulated and forced memory — which enable us to assess what is being silenced, what is being arranged and what is being imposed on the public (2).

His distinction between anamnesis and mnemonics is decisive: in companies, anamnesis is favoured, i.e. the deliberate effort to “activate” a useful past, and mnemonics, which comes back uncontrollably, is mistrusted, hence the temptation of “rhetorical history” (3).

Finally, Ricœur emphasises an ethic of “fair memory” and the unique position of the historian, a third party aspiring to impartiality; this requirement is precisely what is lacking when history becomes a mere marketing tool.

What are the main reasons why organisations are increasingly using their history?

I don't know if they use it ‘more and more’, but when they do, it is often to legitimise choices and (re)configure their identity: history provides rhetorical resources that frame decisions and support the work of institutionalisation.

Secondly, because ‘brand heritage’ produces authenticity, activates nostalgia and reinforces attachment, which is valuable in saturated markets. Various forms of display (museums, rituals, exhibitions) also serve to shape internal identity and external image — we see a shift from neutral conservation to influential scenography.

Finally, these narratives seek to resonate with multiple audiences and play on the trust of stakeholders; if poorly managed, they can undermine it.

Who are the ‘producers’ of this narrative? Why do you think their coexistence, or even co-creation, is essential to understanding the process?

The narrative is never the work of one person alone: it involves brand/communication managers, executives, internal archivists and historians, external historians/consultants, heritage/branding consultants, and scenographers/museographers.

In this article (1), our empirical data (19 interviews, six cases) show that these professions coexist, negotiate and clash over different standards, which explains the ‘negotiated’ texture of the final versions.

This co-construction is fruitful, but it also reveals two often disjointed worlds — archivists on one side, communicators on the other — with areas of friction over access to sources and the degree of acceptable embellishment. When the ethical requirements of the historian's profession are called into question, we see people withdrawing or refusing to “compromise the truth”, which marks the limit of compromise.

What do you recommend to companies, associations, etc. that wish to construct an institutional historical narrative?

They can establish joint governance (internal/external historians, archives, brand) and give these entities a real mandate; in addition, the historian must remain a ‘third party’ guided by impartiality, and not simply a provider of storytelling.

Organisations must also work seriously on and with archives – a sensitive point of contact with testimonies – because this is where the ‘victory over arbitrariness’ is played out. It is in this way, and only in this way, that they can explicitly map the risks of repressed, manipulated or forced memory, and deal with grey areas rather than organising their erasure.

Finally, I would say that they must be wary of opportunistic commemorations and romantic reconstructions: narrative selection opens the door wide to manipulation, especially when events become a pretext.

What are the possible avenues for new research on organisational memory?

Two areas seem urgent to me. On the one hand, operationalising what could be called ‘mnemonic sensitivity’: how to measure it, how to analyse the way it influences perceived legitimacy and accountability; on the other hand, studying the governance of memory: who decides, with what counterbalancing powers and what indicators.

It is also necessary to document the internal effects (employee confidence, cultural alignment) and external effects (public confidence) of responsible or opportunistic narratives. Some recent marketing research shows, for example, that the public suspends its credulity when faced with historical fiction staged by the brand (4). To put it simply, we also like to be ‘led astray’ by an embellished story in a shopping context.

Finally, there are three areas that I believe are currently under-explored: co-production with audiences and counter-memories, experiential devices (museums, retail, exhibitions) and the societal consequences of distorted narratives that end up becoming the norm.

References

(1) Regany, F., Gorge, H. & Cailluet, L. Whose History Is It Anyway? Uses and Abuses in the Co-Construction of Organizational Narratives. J Bus Ethics (2025) - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-06082-x

(2) Ricœur, P. (2014). La Mémoire, l'Histoire, l'Oubli. Le Seuil - https://doi.org/10.3917/ls.ricoe.2014.05

(3) Lubinski, C. (2023). Rhetorical History: Giving Meaning to the Past in Past and Present. In S. Decker, W. M. Foster, & E. Giovannoni (Eds.), Handbook of Historical Methods for Management (pp. 35–45). Edward Elgar Publishing - https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800883741.00010

(4) Benmoussa, F.-Z. et Maynadier, B. (2013). Brand Storytelling : entre doute et croyance. Une étude des récits de la marque Moleskine. Décisions Marketing, 70(2), 119-128. https://shs.cairn.info/revue-decisions-marketing-2013-2-page-119?lang=fr