Bris Rocher, PDG du Groupe Rocher

What interests me is, of course, to transmit an asset, a heritage that will make even more sense tomorrow.

It's a family group, that's how I would describe it. It's a family group that has remained attached to its roots and to the DNA of its founder, my grandfather. Actually, my grandfather... And it's not the fact of being in the cosmetics or textile universe that characterizes the group, but rather its DNA and ultimately the initial will of its founder, my grandfather, to make it a group, I would say, 'site wire' if that's the right term.

I would say it's complicated. I consider myself more as a transmitter, really. I inherited the group, at least its management and part of its capital, and I will have to transmit it. So there is this will to transmit. Afterward, intrapreneur, entrepreneur — an intrapreneur is someone who is not a shareholder themselves, so that's not really my case. I am, I have part of the capital.

No, it's first and foremost about passing on capital, because after that, everyone is free to do what they want. My children will do what they want. We don't know what they will like. What you did, they don't necessarily have to do. First, we'll see who wants to take over from a managerial point of view. But for me, the shareholders, and especially in a family group, are there to guarantee a foundation of values, the DNA of the group. That is first and foremost the role of the family. Afterwards, if some want to get involved operationally, why not, but it's too early to say. My eldest is seven years old. What interests me is, of course, to transmit an asset, a heritage that will make even more sense tomorrow. Concretely, what I need is that those to whom I pass it on have the same chance as I did. I inherited a group that is in tune with the times. That doesn't mean there are no challenges to address; there will always be. But my role is to transmit something that is as impactful as what I received, so I have a lot of work ahead.

Yes, but at the European and global level, of course, because since my job is to transmit an asset that will be even more impactful tomorrow, the question of the asset's sustainability arises from the start. The world is evolving, and you have to transform the asset, make it evolve. What allows things to evolve is stepping out of your comfort zone. Once you step out of your comfort zone, you make some people more or less comfortable with that. So you need conviction, leadership, and to bring everyone along. It's not impossible. It's never been a walk in the park. It's still certainly a matter of gray hair, in an industry where people don't necessarily trust those without gray hair. For those listeners who can't see you, you have a few now, a few for a long time. But when you took the helm of this group, you were very young, and you gave direction. So there were also likely some reservations. Experience can help understand the vision, but did you hear those remarks? Did you pay attention? Were you sure of yourself? Did you have doubts?

First of all, things happened gradually, not brutally. I entered the group at the age of 16 following my father's death, but I came in through the back door. I started in accounting, legal, management control, etc. I left the group to have an experience outside the family group, and then I came back, but with a management team. At first there was a triumvirate, then a duo with the age when I returned. I was 23, very young, but I wasn't alone. I had the management teams. And my grandfather was wise in that sense: he was chairman and CEO, and he appointed deputy CEOs. We were three at first, then two. In 2003 I returned to the group as vice chairman of the board. In 2006 he appointed me CEO, and in 2009 he left, and I took the chairmanship. But all this happened over a fairly long period. Additionally, my grandfather was brilliant in that over the last three years, he was no longer even in the office. When he left, for many employees it was almost painless; some had never known him. So he left us room to take over, and that transition happened quite smoothly.

What I know, and for the listeners, I spent two years of my life closing a department. It was not very entrepreneurial, but it was very complicated. For years, the group originally sold plant-based beauty products by mail order. We simply duplicated the French model by contagion, as if borders didn't exist. Mail order worked very well, except in the United States, for reasons of cultural differences, language, customs, logistics, and a whole host of reasons. We never succeeded. Maybe the approach wasn't the best either. At the time, there was a slogan: 'a man with a million' — the person would go and try, and it worked or it didn't. For us, the US never worked. Over time, the internal idea was that it wasn't for us, and we shouldn't go there. But the Rocher Group has always been able to pivot. When faced with a wall, we have always been able to pivot, overcome the obstacle, or go around it. Originally, it was a mail-order group. When there was the 1968 crisis, postal strikes, mail order stopped working. What did my grandfather do? He opened stores. He opened stores to have a presence on the street but also to bypass and no longer depend on the public sector. The same idea was behind that. In any case, that's the same idea that drove me. At the end, I was stubborn about it. We know retail is more complicated today because of the internet, and then the health crisis we are going through, where we had to close 95% of our stores. With stores closed, there's no revenue. I had anticipated this phenomenon because we've seen traffic declines for years. So we moved towards another business we already practiced, notably with the acquisition of Stanhome, which is direct selling, what Americans call 'direct selling,' but which has mutated into social selling. Instead of in-home parties, meetings happen on social networks, so no geographical proximity. I hadn't anticipated a health crisis and store closures; I just saw that mail order was going to disappear. What made the group strong was being on two distribution channels: retail and mail order. So I needed to find a new relay to always have two distribution channels. Since we had made an incursion into direct selling, which was also modernizing through social networks, I said to myself, let's develop that. An opportunity presented itself with the possibility of acquiring an American brand that operated on that distribution channel in the United States. So we had to go for it. It was the biggest acquisition the group had ever made. Yes, it was a billion in revenue at the time. That's a huge amount. So we made that acquisition. It was risky; we had never succeeded in the US, and it was a significant amount. Well, I'll spare you the details. In the end, what makes the difference? The women and men of a company, that's what constitutes a company: the team. We put a team in place, and it must be acknowledged that they did an extraordinary job. Did you keep the team that was there when you bought it? Partly, but not all. The CEO at the time was at the end of her career and wanted to leave the company. That was agreed even before the acquisition, during the process. So we had to change a few people, capitalize on competent people, renewed the team, and it works. It works.

First of all, the legal headquarters is still in La Gacilly. After that, yes, in Issy-les-Moulineaux there is what we call the headquarters, which groups the corporate functions, very classically. But in Brittany, the Yves Rocher brand in France, the offices are in Rennes, even in Rennes. And in La Gacilly, 85% of production is done in Brittany, starting with La Gacilly. In Brittany, we have about 7,000 jobs. In France, that's just over half in Brittany. But do you think it would not be possible for the management to be in Rennes? It's more complicated, but not impossible. The operations management is still in La Gacilly. The head of the group's industry is in La Gacilly. The head of supply chain is in La Gacilly. So attracting talent... In a previous episode, I had Bertrand Thomas, the co-founder of Caudalie, who explained that one of the success factors of Caudalie was selling in pharmacies. So for you, what is the success factor of Yves Rocher? Is it the human, its roots, its values? What would you cite? Direct selling? It's a combination.

For me, there are three things that are powerful and in tune with the times. First, being a family group, and we know that families are attached to their roots and territory, and the citizen recognizes that. Second, obviously, beauty through plants, being a group committed to the planet. That also resonates with current events. And third, the human aspect, of course. It's a group that has always wanted to have a direct and privileged relationship with its end customer, and that makes the difference. That's why social selling works; it's ten times more powerful than an algorithm advising one thing or another. I talked about water from Mont Roucous; if I recommend you drink it because it's the least mineralized in the world and recommended for newborns and seniors, so it shouldn't be bad for us, if I tell you that, it's ten times more powerful because we already have a relationship, than if you read it in a magazine. Especially since our independent consultants are not shareholders, which is important to specify.

As a citizen, I think we are mixing everything up. The Black Lives Matter cause is valid, obviously, but I don't see how saying a product is whitening, if that's its function, is bad. I don't see how removing the word changes its power. At some point, we are constraining ourselves too much with political correctness. But if there is a lack of authenticity, I have a strong conviction: I think all companies in the world should commit to becoming a form of mission-driven company. But a mission-driven company for me does not mean fighting all battles. A mission-driven company is one that seeks to combine economic performance with consideration of the common good. If a company fights all battles, it jeopardizes its own profitability and thus its sustainability. So what does a mission-driven company mean? It means defining its deep purpose and committing to a cause, but not 150 causes. For example, we became a mission-driven company in October of last year under the Pacte law. I think we were a mission-driven company from the start, really. But following that, I was contacted by Licra, SOS Racisme, and I was approached about gender equality, etc. I'm not saying those battles are invalid; every battle is valid. But I know our main battle. Of course, I pay attention to these terms, but it's not the battle we will be most engaged in. We will be engaged in our own battle, which we define as reconnecting women and men to nature. That is fundamental for us. This battle, again, because of its roots, the authenticity of the brand, comes from my grandfather. My grandfather, as I said earlier, had serious health problems. He was always in deficit, so much so that his parents had to homeschool him. As a result, he had a very strong bond with his father. But at the age of 14, he lost his beloved father. It was a family tragedy. We're in the context of 1944 in a small village in La Gacilly, not many distractions for a kid of that age. What did he do? He took refuge in the Breton moorland for two years, spending his days there. It brought him a form of peace, serenity, protection; it comforted him in a way. And that is the beginning of his entrepreneurial project. Ten years later, when he started his business, he did so with the desire to preserve biodiversity because he had realized that nature has a positive impact on our well-being. That's our battle.

Internally, for the vast majority, it's very positive. It's like a second wind. We give the purpose of the action to all employees. We have to recognize that today it's very anxiety-provoking to work in any group. We know that 60% of jobs that will exist in ten years do not exist today. The world has become so complex, and we have complicated our organizations. Eventually, we end up lost, and we no longer understand the purpose of what we do. Yet we spend two-thirds of our time at work. So defining the purpose of a company is, in a way, announcing the finality and reality. It's never really finished, which is also good. But it's very positive because it puts the company in motion, gives meaning. Honestly, I see that it gives a real new breath. As for the competition, I don't know. But since we became a mission-driven company, whenever I post something on LinkedIn, I see that L'Oréal is always in the pack. So I think we are in the spotlight. Do you consider L'Oréal as a competitor today? It's more complicated than that. It depends on how you look at it. If you take the first market, France, in market share, our first competitor is L'Oréal Paris, because it's a mass brand, more accessible, like Yves Rocher. We are on the podium with Nivea. Sometimes we are number one, sometimes another. Now if you take the business model itself, vertical integration with retail and social selling, it's more like Natura in Brazil, which is strong in shops with retail and strong in social selling, and also focused on naturalness. So it depends on the angle.

Reasoning only on margin is not sufficient in itself. I think we need to integrate the margin question, what is the right level, but once we reduce margins, we need to integrate another reasoning: what is the intangible value of my company? Because if there is intangible value, there is value somewhere behind it. I remember Thierry de la Tour d'Artaise, the boss of Mérieux, had a very interesting reasoning. He said that the more intangible value increases, the more volatility decreases. I think there is something to explore there. I found that reasoning relevant because if we are only focused on margin, we will be waiting in vain. And yet that's what happens today. But a large part of companies today have the objective of maximizing margins. I think that in any case, if it's just you and me, we will have a hard time saying how to reduce margins. We won't win the argument; we will be in the minority. Reducing margins is only interesting if I increase the intangible value of my brand. Otherwise, reinvesting in teams, in development, in things that create this intangible value. But it's so important. I think we will get there because the reality is that a brand today addresses not just an individual but communities. And it's clear that there is a form of awareness, slow but real, that is spreading very strongly because these communities have the ability to form without geographical proximity. So there are more and more communities. In the end, a brand only lives if it has customers, and customers are citizens, and they vote not with a ballot but with their credit card. So do you think that companies that don't take this very seriously, whether it's a mission-driven company or just paying attention and doing things differently, will they survive? It's clear to me, though I'm not sure about the timeframe, but in the long term, companies that do not move towards a mission-driven model will not survive. Just look at what happened two years ago: the CEO of BlackRock wrote to all his investees to tell them they must integrate this because he had identified that there would be a deficit of goodwill at some point. We talked about L'Oréal earlier. Did you ever look at an offer? There was a parallel story: a significant stake of Sanofi, which was a shareholder of L'Oréal. Did that completely vaccinate you against the ability to have external shareholders? Is that something you've looked at? Because L'Oréal and others... I'm not sure, but I'm sure many have circled around you. Did you ever consider it? We are not sellers. But most people always say that to avoid saying it. You are really not sellers? No, we are not sellers. It's crazy, because my grandfather sold his company in the 70s, but why? Because he had health problems. I said it earlier. At the time, in the 70s, he was dying, and the group was not what it is today, but he already had his children, his wife. He thought he needed to put some money aside to secure his family if he passed away. So he sold 60% of his group to Sanofi in two stages, the majority. He managed to keep control through voting rights, but he had sold the majority of financial rights for health reasons. At this point, it's important to say that the partnership with Sanofi was quite positive, very good. In fact, I mentioned the May 1968 strikes; the stores didn't take over overnight. It was Sanofi that got us out of the financial impasse. A company never goes bankrupt because it loses money; it's always a cash flow problem, and Sanofi helped at that time. But years later, in the late 90s, when Sanofi decided to merge with Synthélabo, which belonged to a lab that belonged to L'Oréal, L'Oréal became the reference shareholder of the new Sanofi-Synthélabo. My grandfather had never imagined that we would end up in L'Oréal's pocket. So we bought back our shares. It was a legal battle, and it took a lot of time. It started in 1998 and we were completely out of it by 2012. So it took time, but we bought back. It's actually the opposite of what usually happens; families usually sell, but we bought back. I entered the company because when I lost my father at age 16, I wanted to join the company for two reasons: first, there was a filiation issue; it was the company my grandfather created and my father had turned around, because due to risky diversifications in the late 80s and early 90s, the group found itself in a complicated situation. It was my father who took the helm and turned it around. I saw that my father was also very involved in managing the group, and I wanted to know the behind-the-scenes. So out of curiosity, I entered the group. Is there little chance that the group will be bought in the next few decades or go public? He asked me the question? No, but I mean, going public is only useful for financing international expansion, honestly. Or for a major acquisition. What advice would you give today to someone, not necessarily a young person, who wants to start? The important thing is that it must come from deep within. It's a bit like a work of art, the creation of a company. You really need to question the 'why.' And of course, the mission. It can't be money, I'm sorry to say that. It can't be money. In those cases, nine times out of ten, it will be a failure. Or you're lucky, but you can't always be lucky. So you must really question the 'why': why are you investing, why are you starting? That's the most important thing because no matter what, it will be difficult. No matter what, you have to step out of your comfort zone. If you haven't truly questioned the 'why,' at some point you will give up. So for me, define the 'why,' define the mission.