This article originally appeared in LinkedIn Pulse, authored by Louise Vella.
Introduction
The global luxury industry is highly dependent on brand heritage, intangible value, and continuity of leadership. Gucci, founded in Florence in 1921, has evolved from a family-owned Italian leather goods business into one of the most profitable houses under Kering S.A., the Paris-listed luxury conglomerate controlled by the Pinault family. Gucci’s trajectory exemplifies the challenges of succession: how a family-influenced group can preserve long-term value by ensuring robust legal governance, safeguarding and leveraging intellectual property (IP) within a multinational corporate structure, and implementing tax-efficient strategies for intergenerational wealth transfer.
1. Legal Governance
1.1 Board and Executive Succession
Kering has had to professionalise governance structures while balancing the influence of the Pinault family as controlling shareholders. The group combines executive and board functions under François-Henri Pinault as Chairman and CEO, supported by a Lead Independent Director to mitigate the concentration of power.
Succession planning is explicitly addressed in Kering’s Universal Registration Document, which describes short-, medium-, and long-term planning for leadership roles. This was tested in practice when Gucci’s leadership shifted: in 2025, Kering appointed Francesca Bellettini to head Gucci after replacing Stefano Cantino, in parallel with Luca de Meo’s appointment as Kering’s new Group CEO. These changes reflect not only board-level decision-making but also the governance imperative to maintain investor confidence during creative and commercial turbulence.
1.2 Balancing Family Control with Market Credibility
The Pinault family, through its holding company Artémis, owns around 42 per cent of Kering’s share capital but a larger share of voting rights, ensuring strategic control. Yet as a listed company, Kering must demonstrate transparency and fairness to minority shareholders. Independent directors, remuneration controls, and disclosure rules under French and EU law are mechanisms to manage potential conflicts of interest.
Family businesses must avoid the destructive internal conflicts dramatised in House of Gucci. Instead of family members contesting direct managerial authority, the Pinault model separates ownership from day-to-day operations, allowing professionals to run brands while the family sets long-term direction.
1.3 Family Governance and Intergenerational Continuity
Succession is not limited to executive roles but extends to how the Pinault family maintains control across generations. Moves such as appointing François Pinault’s grandson to Christie's board in 2024 signal the preparation of heirs for long-term stewardship. Unlike the Gucci family saga, where a lack of coordination led to loss of control, the Pinaults have formalised governance through holding companies, shareholder agreements, and family councils.
2. Intellectual Property and Corporate Structure
2.1 Centralising and Protecting IP
The Gucci brand’s value lies in its trademarks, designs, and creative heritage. Kering has ensured that Gucci’s IP is centralised in corporate entities that can license rights across global subsidiaries. Recent moves to register and secure IP for digital goods, NFTs, and Web3 ventures reflect a forward-looking approach to brand protection.
Centralisation avoids fragmentation that might otherwise occur in family disputes, as seen historically in Gucci’s own past, when disputes between heirs weakened control of the brand.
2.2 Licensing and Transfer Pricing
Gucci entities pay royalties for the use of brand IP to centralised holding companies. These flows must meet OECD transfer-pricing standards. However, past controversies highlight the risks: in 2019, Kering agreed a €1.25 billion settlement with Italian tax authorities over profit allocation linked to Gucci’s revenues. This demonstrates that aggressive or poorly substantiated IP structuring can undermine reputational and financial stability.
Since then, Kering has adopted a published Tax Policy emphasising compliance and avoidance of artificial schemes. This aligns with new international tax norms such as the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) framework.
2.3 House-Centric Model
Kering’s structure allows each luxury house relative autonomy under a decentralised, “house-centric” model. Gucci retains creative independence while benefitting from shared functions such as IT, supply chain management, and sustainability frameworks. For succession, this modularity offers flexibility: individual brands can be restructured or divested without destabilising the group, while IP remains tightly controlled at the centre.
3. Tax-Efficient Wealth Transfer
3.1 The French Tax Environment
France imposes some of the highest inheritance taxes in Europe, with marginal rates reaching 45 per cent. Without planning, large family shareholdings such as Artémis’ stake in Kering could create liquidity crises for heirs upon succession.
3.2 Mechanisms for Mitigation
The Pinaults, like other French business dynasties, leverage smart tools to secure intergenerational wealth while maintaining control. These include Pacte Dutreil for up to 75% inheritance tax relief on business assets, holding companies to centralise dividends and manage liquidity, valuation discounts for minority or illiquid stakes, and assurance vie (life insurance) for tax-advantaged transfers. Together, these measures help heirs retain strategic control while easing the tax burden of succession.
3.3 Control Preservation
Beyond tax, preserving control requires legal structuring of voting rights. Dual-class shares are not common in France, but shareholder agreements and long-term loyalty voting rights (droit de vote double) allow families to amplify influence. Artémis uses these mechanisms to maintain effective command of Kering without needing majority equity ownership.
3.4 Liquidity and Risk Management
Liquidity planning is essential. Families often hold cash reserves at the holding-company level or arrange financing facilities so heirs can pay inheritance taxes without selling strategic shares. This prevents the fragmentation of ownership that led the Gucci family to lose control of their namesake brand in the 1990s.
4. Integration and Risks
4.1 Family vs Professional Management
Luxury brands are especially vulnerable to instability in leadership. Kering’s decision to bring in Luca de Meo, an external professional, as CEO demonstrates recognition that family control must coexist with professional expertise. This stands in sharp contrast to the intra-family disputes portrayed in House of Gucci.
4.2 Regulatory and Tax Scrutiny
The 2019 Italian tax settlement underscores the risk of reputational damage from aggressive structuring. Succession planning must anticipate ever-tightening global standards on transparency, substance, and reporting.
4.3 Intergenerational Harmony
Family governance requires communication, conflict-management structures, and agreed rules. The Gucci family lacked these, leading to fragmentation. The Pinaults appear to have internalised such lessons by formalising governance via Artémis and structuring board involvement for the next generation.
Conclusion
Gucci’s history illustrates the consequences of poor succession, while its present under Kering demonstrates how disciplined governance, robust IP management, and tax-efficient family planning can sustain control and brand value.
Legal governance: Independent directors, formal succession planning, and separation of ownership from management preserve market trust.
IP & corporate structure: Centralised control of trademarks and licensing ensures brand value is both protected and monetised, while compliance with international tax norms avoids regulatory conflict.
Tax-efficient wealth transfer: Use of holding structures, inheritance reliefs, and voting-rights mechanisms allows the Pinault family to preserve long-term influence without triggering destructive fragmentation.
The broader lesson is that families must anticipate succession not only as a financial event but as a governance process. Effective structures reduce conflict, protect brand identity, and enable continuity across generations. Gucci under Kering demonstrates that, with the right legal and fiscal tools, even a family-influenced global group can avoid the pitfalls that destroyed the Gucci dynasty and instead secure enduring legacy.
📌 Sources:
Crain Currency (2025). Gucci owner François-Henri Pinault’s fortunes rest on heir and outsider CEO Luca de Meo.
Financial Times (2024). François Pinault’s grandson joins Christie’s board.
Forden, S.G. (2000). House of Gucci: A Sensational Story of Murder, Madness, Glamour, and Greed. HarperCollins.
Glitz Paris (2023). Gucci secures IP rights for its digital goods.
Kering (2022).Universal Registration Document. Paris: Kering S.A.
Kering (2024).Tax Policy. Paris: Kering S.A
Reuters (2019). Gucci owner Kering agrees record Italian tax settlement.
Reuters (2025). Kering ousts Gucci chief, appoints Francesca Bellettini to lead brand.
Vizologi (2023). Kering Business Model Canvas.
How I Can Help: Protecting Your Legacy Through IP, Governance, and Tax Strategy
Gucci’s journey shows that even the most iconic brands can face risk without strong legal governance, intellectual property protection, and tax-efficient succession planning.
If you’d like to explore how we could secure the future of your own family business or brand.