Voici une excellente prise de position de Richard Leblanc dans Listed Magazine à propos du rôle du conseil d’administration dans les cas de fraudes, malversations, corruption, contrôles internes déficients, problèmes éthique, etc. L’article explique que le C.A. est ultimement responsable de la conformité, de la surveillance des processus de contrôle et de la conduite éthique des dirigeants. Comme le dit Leblanc, « The buck stops at the Board… Saying the “directors didn’t know” is no excuse ».
Un extrait de l’article :
« If the CEO of SNC-Lavalin allegedly overrode his own CFO and breached the company’s code of ethics in authorizing $56 million of questionable payments to undisclosed agents that the federal Canadian police are now investigating, did the board of directors of SNC-Lavalin have a role to play? If RBC, as alleged by a U.S. regulator, made “material false statements” in connection with non-arm’s length trades, did the board of directors of RBC have a role to play?
The answer is “Yes” in these and similar cases. Speaking generally, as all allegations have yet to be proven, it is not credible to argue—as some do—that boards do not have a determinative role to play in compliance and reputational failure, or that directors did not know. A board is the only body that has the legal authority and power to control management and designate all compliance and control systems. It alone acts or fails to act. A board is paid to take all reasonable steps consistent with best practices, to ensure that it does know ».
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 