**1. Introduction**

In 2001, an economist at Goldman Sachs by the name of Jim O'Neill coined the BRIC term based on a paper that would change the world of investing and how we perceive risks in emerging markets (O'Neill 2001). Through his analysis, O'Neill, now Baron O'Neill of Gatley, convinced millions of investors that the opportunities outweighed the risks. The analysis was so timely that it became a type of conventional wisdom, expected to "show the path" for emerging markets through 2050 (Wilson and Purushothaman 2003). However, the path came to a dead-end in 2015 when Goldman Sachs closed the BRIC fund after years of losses and plummeting assets1, about a year after O'Neill's retirement.<sup>2</sup> Whereas other acronyms have been invented (e.g., Next Eleven), none of them have managed to be as convincing and widely used.

In 2001 as well, Khanna and Rivkin's quantitative study of 12 emerging markets (3 out 5 BRICS were represented) confirms the inadequacy of conventional wisdom in advanced economies that "unrelated diversification depresses profitability" (Khanna and Rivkin 2001, p. 45). More specifically, these Harvard Business School scholars demonstrate statistically that "business group<sup>3</sup> affiliates earn higher accounting profits than do otherwise comparable unaffiliated firms" in several of the markets

<sup>1</sup> https://www.ft.com/content/89f59acc-8679-11e5-8a12-b0ce506400af.

<sup>2</sup> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-goldman-oneill/goldman-sachs-oneill-aka-mr-bric-to-retireidUSBRE91411320130205.

<sup>3</sup> Definition: "a business group is a set of firms which, though legally independent, are bound together by a constellation of formal and informal ties and are accustomed to taking coordinated action" (Khanna and Rivkin 2001, pp. 47–48).

examined (Khanna and Rivkin 2001, p. 68). This important study, published in the *Strategic Management Journal*, led to more contributions on emerging markets and was followed by two instrumental studies (Wright et al. 2005; London and Hart 2004).

In "Strategy Research in Emerging Economies: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom," Wright et al. point out the rising prominence of emerging economies in the world economy and explain the limitations of theoretical contributions based on institutional theory alone. By combining four strategies<sup>4</sup> in emerging economies with four theoretical perspectives5, they give strategists a multidimensional lens for them to better understand emerging markets while challenging conventional wisdom. Their study builds on London and Hart (2004), whose exploratory analysis based on interviews of MNC managers, 24 original case studies, and archival materials, challenges the transnational model by suggesting that "Western-style patterns of economic development may not occur in low-income [emerging] markets" (London and Hart 2004, p. 350). Furthermore, they find that that "successful strategies sugges<sup>t</sup> the importance of MNCs developing a global capacity in social embeddedness" through relationships with non-traditional partners (London and Hart 2004, p. 350).

Since 2005, no major contributions have been published to show strategists how to navigate a new normal where conventional wisdom no longer holds true. In our new normal, uncertainty, volatility, protectionism, and risks abound in the aftermath of the Brexit vote and the surprise election of Donald Trump that created the BRUMP effect (Ghemawat 2018). Therefore, a closer look at practice and a combination of theory and practice might be a source of greater insights.

In fact, whereas the 2008 GFC erased trillions of dollars in wealth, John Paulson made billions with his bet against the conventional wisdom on subprime loans and housing (Zuckerman 2010). The GFC, not only taught just about everyone the limitations of that wisdom, but also put institutions in the hot seat for having failed to protect investors and for being associated with the root cause of the main issue: greed (Pandit 2018). Specifically, one of the oldest institutions in the world received much criticism: the university and its business school (Giacalone and Wargo 2009; Howard and Cornuel 2012; Currie et al. 2010), the main source of talent on Wall Street. Therefore, in the post GFC era, it might be expected to marginalize business schools after this devastating crisis, in the same way that a comeback to protectionism—supposed to make things better at home—appears to be the most appropriate reaction against globalization and its risks. We think otherwise and challenge conventional wisdom on emerging and "developed" markets by using a holistic framework and five typical assumptions as our basis for illustration. We then carry out a comparative analysis of events and patterns across countries, institutions, and industries, in order to see if those assumptions are substantiated or invalidated in a broader and more complex context between 2000 and 2018, basing our inductive approach on a few theoretical framework and scholarly contributions.

This paper provides a simple framework to generate strategic insights to strategists and leaders who seek to re-assess the risks and opportunities in emerging markets and increase their resilience, essentially rebuilding the BRICS. Using the resulting unconventional wisdom, this rebuilding is, not only vital for the economic health of these emerging countries, but also for that of the global economy.
