Skip to content

La nouvelle réalité des comités de gouvernance des conseils d’administration | en rappel

27 août 2016

Aujourd’hui, je veux partager avec vous certaines considérations cruciales pour un meilleur fonctionnement des comités de gouvernance des conseils d’administration (aussi appelés comités de nomination).

Cet article, publié par Ruby Sharma* et Ann Yerger*, associées au EY Center for Board Matters de la firme Ernst & Young, paru sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (HLSF), montre l’ascension fulgurante des comités de gouvernance. Ce phénomène est attribuable à l’importance accrue accordée à la diversité et à la divulgation, dans un contexte où les investisseurs institutionnels et les fonds activistes sont de plus en plus soucieux de la compétence des administrateurs de sociétés.

Les auteurs montrent toute l’importance qui doit être apportée au travail des comités de gouvernance afin de mieux s’adapter aux changements majeurs qui surviennent dans le monde de la gouvernance.

(1) Les comités de gouvernance doivent faire preuve de plus de divulgation sur la composition du conseil d’administration, sur les qualifications des administrateurs ainsi que sur le mix de leurs compétences, et sur les méthodes d’évaluation des administrateurs afin de montrer comment chacun contribue au CA.

(2) Les comités de gouvernance doivent intégrer les considérations liées à la diversité, à l’expertise, au nombre de mandats ainsi qu’aux questions de planification de la relève.

(3) Enfin, les comités de gouvernance doivent être sensibles au fait que la composition des conseils d’administration influencera de plus en plus le vote des investisseurs (actionnaires) aux assemblées générales annuelles.

Voici un extrait de l’article publié dans HLSF.

Bonne lecture !

Three Things Nominating Committees Need to Know

 

gouvernance

 

(1) Evaluate and enhance disclosures about director qualifications, board composition and board assessment processes

Most institutional investors we spoke with (more than 75%) said companies are not doing a good job explaining why they have the right directors on the board. Historically, investor understanding of director qualifications has been limited to basic biographic information in proxy filings representing “to the letter” compliance with the requirement to disclose: “… the particular experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that qualified that person to serve as a director of the company … in light of the company’s business.”

Now, companies are increasingly enhancing their disclosures by explaining more about how each director contributes to the board. Some disclosures go further to describe how the board and its committees, as a whole, have the appropriate mix of skills, expertise and perspectives to oversee the company’s key strategies, challenges and risk management efforts.

Companies are making other efforts to enhance the way they communicate to investors, such as by using graphics, tables and letters to shareholders. Some are exploring the use of videos and other media. And some are looking to other markets such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada for ideas for how to enhance their own disclosures. For example, some companies may explain how new directors complement the existing board, provide specific examples of industry and functional expertise, illustrate how different forms of diversity combine to provide for a more dynamic board, explain how the board’s expertise is enhanced through additional educational opportunities and discuss how the board assessment process is used to further strengthen the board.

When there are questions about company performance, investors are likely to look more closely at board composition, and when there are minimal or no disclosures demonstrating how directors contribute to the company’s strategic goals, investors may question the performance assessment process. For example, they may ask how the evaluation process is structured, how often it’s carried out and how results are addressed. They also may ask about the role of independent board leaders, other stakeholders and/or third parties in the process. They may also question how board candidates are sourced, the board succession planning process and director education practices.

(2) Integrate diversity, expertise and tenure considerations into board composition and succession planning

Nominating committees play the critical role of linking the board’s director recruitment, selection and succession planning processes to the company’s strategic goals. They do this by trying to maintain the best mix of expertise and perspectives in the boardroom to address the ever-changing business environment and oversee the company’s key strategic efforts.

Nominating committees, institutional investors and other governance observers are increasingly weighing additional perspectives in the director selection process, such as diversity (including gender, racial, cultural, geographical, generational diversity), industry knowledge, global perspectives, and expertise in areas such as cybersecurity and environmental sustainability.

An ongoing focus on board composition allows the nominating committee to maintain a balanced mix of fresh insights (from recently appointed directors) with institutional knowledge (from seasoned and longer-tenured directors) and other perspectives in between (based on variations in board tenure). The table below provides some general metrics on board composition, which may be helpful to nominating committees seeking to develop a view about longer-term positioning for their boards.

How does your brand compare?

Summary data S&P 500 S&P 1500 Russell 3000
Average board tenure 10 10 9
Average age 63 63 62
Gender diversity 20% 16% 13%

(3) Growing attention to board composition and quality may influence how investors vote in future director elections

Investors historically have voted against director nominees based on triggers such as poor meeting attendance, excessive board service, executive compensation challenges, independence concerns, perceptions of subpar performance and/or unresponsiveness to shareholders.

Now, institutional investors appear to be moving beyond these traditional metrics for evaluating boards. Increasingly investors are calling out the lack of board diversity as a governance issue in engagement conversations with companies, stewardship reports and proxy voting guidelines —with some investors adopting policies of voting against board nominees when they perceive insufficient diversity, such as too few women and/or minority directors.

New policies by proxy advisory firm Glass Lewis reflect the emerging shift to consider board composition and director qualifications in voting recommendations. For example, beginning in 2016, Glass Lewis, which develops its policies with investor input, will recommend that investors oppose the re-election of a nominating committee chair in the event of poor performance and the chair’s “failure to ensure the board has directors with relevant experience, either through periodic director assessment or board refreshment …”

 

Where do nominating committees go from here?

 

Nominating committee members should recognize that these developments are occurring as investor votes are becoming more meaningful, with annually elected boards (versus staggered) and with a majority voting requirement (versus plurality). There also appears to be an emerging trend of targeted voting practices, with investors opposing perceived action or inaction by specific directors and committees. For example, we recently found that companies with low say-on-pay votes saw higher opposition votes directed at compensation committee members.

When directors step off the board, whether as planned or unexpectedly, nominating committees need to reconsider overall board composition, what the departure may mean for the board now and going forward, and how best to communicate these changes to investors. An effective, experienced and diverse board is a strategic asset to any company and its investors and there’s an opportunity cost to standing still. The keys to that are in the nominating committee hands.

2015 director opposition votes

 

Summary data S&P 500 large cap S&P 400 mid cap S&P 600 small cap Russell 3000
Average director opposition votes 3% 4% 5% 5%
Number of director candidates 4,700 2,500 3,200 17,500
Portion of director nominees with more than 20% opposition votes 2% 3% 5% 4%

Questions for the board and nominating committee to consider

 

  1. Are the company’s proxy disclosures adequately showcasing the diverse backgrounds, skills and qualifications of the directors?
  2. Is there a robust mix of perspectives—aligned with company strategies and risks—among the current line-up of directors?
  3. Based on changing company strategies, risks and challenges, how much board turnover is optimal—in the next one, two or three years—in order to stay on top of these developments?
  4. Is the board providing a robust disclosure of the board assessment processes?
  5. Does the board follow through with board assessments by reviewing key takeaways and implementing an action plan—with deadlines?
  6. When was the last time the selection criteria for director nominees was reassessed and updated?

___________________________________

*Ruby Sharma is a principal and Ann Yerger is an executive director at the EY Center for Board Matters at Ernst & Young LLP. The following post is based on a report from the EY Center for Board Matters, available here.

 

 

Laisser un commentaire

Qu'en pensez-vous ?

Entrer les renseignements ci-dessous ou cliquer sur une icône pour ouvrir une session :

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment ce contenu :