Proposition de changement aux règles de gouvernance | Une enquête de Richard Leblanc


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un billet publié par Richard Leblanc* sur son blogue Governance Gateway. L’auteur a interrogé un nombre important d’acteurs de la scène de la gouvernance (investisseurs activistes, gestionnaires de fonds privés, administrateurs, CEO) et a tenu compte des points de vue émis par plusieurs groupes d’experts dans le domaine :

« Advisory work with regulators; assessments of leading boards; expertwitness work; academic and practitioner literature; current and emerging regulations; director conferences and webinars; lectures the author has delivered to the Institute of Corporate Directors and Directors College in Canada; discussions in the author’s LinkedIn group, Board and Advisors; and research being conducted with the author and Henry D. Wolfe on building high performance public company boards ».

Il s’agit d’une proposition de changement à trois niveaux :

(1) Renforcement du rôle du C.A. en matière de création de valeur;

(2) Imputabilité de la direction envers le C.A.;

(3) Imputabilité du C.A. envers les actionnaires.

L’auteur nous indique que l’article sera bientôt publié dans International Journal of Disclosure and Governance sous le titre Forty Proposals to Strengthen: the Public Company Board of Director’s Role in Value Creation; Management Accountability to the Board; and Board Accountability to Shareholders

Je vous invite à consulter cette liste afin d’avoir un aperçu des types de changements proposés. Vos commentaires sont toujours les bienvenus. Bonne lecture.

Proposals to Strengthen a Board’s Role in Value Creation, Management Accountability to the Board, and Board Accountability to Shareholders

I.    Increase Board Engagement, Expertise and Incentives to Focus on Value Creation

Reduce the size of the Board.

Increase the frequency of Board meetings.

Limit Director overboardedness.

Limit Chair of the Board overboardedness.

Increase Director work time.

Increase the Board Chair’s role in the value creation process.

Statue of John Harvard, founder of Harvard Uni...
Statue of John Harvard, founder of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the college yard. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Focus the majority of Board time on value creation and company performance.

Increase Director roles and responsibilities relative to value creation.

Increase Director compensation, and match incentive compensation to long-term value creation and individual performance.

Enable Director access to information and reporting Management.

Enable Director and Board access to expertise to inform value creation as needed.

Require active investing in the Company by Directors.

Select Directors who can contribute directly to value creation.

Revise the Board’s committee structure to address value creation.

Hold Management to account.

Disclose individual Director areas of expertise directly related to value creation.

Increase Board engagement focused on value creation.

Establish and fund an independent Office of the Chairman.

Limit Board homogeneity and groupthink.

II.   Increase Director Independence from Management and Management Accountability to the Board

Increase objective Director and advisory independence.

Limit Director interlocks.

Limit over-tenured Directors.

Limit potential Management capture and social relatedness of Directors.

Decrease undue Management influence on Director selection.

Decrease undue Management influence on Board Chair selection.

Increase objective independence of governance assurance providers.

Limit management control of board protocols.

Address fully perceived conflicts of interest.

Establish independent oversight functions reporting directly to Committees of the Board to support compliance oversight.

Match Management compensation with longer-term value creation, corporate performance and risk management.

III.   Increase Director Accountability to Shareholders

The Board Chair and Committee Chairs shall communicate face-to-face and visit regularly with major Shareholders.

Communicate the value creation plan to Shareholders.

Implement integrated, longer-term reporting focused on sustained value creation that includes non-financial performance and investment.

Implement independent and transparent Director performance reviews with Shareholder input linked to re-nomination.

Each Director, each year, shall receive a majority of Shareholder votes cast to continue serving as a Director.

Make it easier for Shareholders to propose and replace Directors.

Limit any undue Management influence on Board – Shareholder communication.

Limit Shareholder barriers to the governance process that can be reasonably seen to promote Board or Management entrenchment.

__________________________________

* Richard W. Leblanc, Associate Professor, Law, Governance & Ethics, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies, of the Bar of Ontario; Summer Faculty 2013 (MGMT S-5018 Corporate Governance) at Harvard University; Faculty at the Directors College; and Research Fellow and Advisory Board Member, Institute for Excellence in Corporate Governance, University of Texas at Dallas, Naveen Jindal School of Management.

Quels sont les grands enjeux de gouvernance ? | Six thèmes chauds !


En rappel, vous trouverez, ci-joint, une excellente publication de la NACD (National Association of Corporate Directors) qui présente les grands défis et les enjeux qui attendent les administrateurs de sociétés au cours des prochaines années.

Ce document est un recueil de textes publiés par les partenaires de la NACD : Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc., KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute, Marsh & McLennan Companies, NASDAQ OMX, Pearl Meyer & Partners et Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.

Vous y trouverez un ensemble d’articles très pertinents sur les sujets de l’heure en gouvernance. J’ai déjà publié un billet sur ce sujet le 23 juin 2013, en référence à cette publication.

Chaque année, la NACD se livre à cet exercice et publie un document très prisé !

Voici comment les firmes expertes se sont répartis les thèmes les plus « hot » en gouvernance. Bonne lecture.

Boardroom, Tremont Grand
Boardroom, Tremont Grand (Photo credit: Joel Abroad)

(1) What to Do When an Activist Investor Comes Calling par Heidrick & Struggle

(2) KPMG’s Audit Committee Priorities for 2013 par KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute

(3) Board Risk Checkup—Are You Ready for the Challenges Ahead ? par Marsh & McLennan Companies

(4) Boardroom Discussions par NASDAQ OMX

(5) Paying Executives for Driving Long-Term Success par Pearl Meyer & Partners

(6) What Boards Should Focus on in 2013 par Weil, Gotshal and Manges, LLP

NACD Insights and Analysis – Governance Challenges: 2013 and Beyond

Today, directors are operating in a new environment. Shareholders, regulators, and stakeholders have greater influence on the boardroom than ever before. In addition, risks and crisis situations are occurring with greater frequency and amplitude. Directors have a responsibility to ensure their companies are prepared for these challenges—present and future.This compendium provides insights and practical guidance from the nation’s leading boardroom experts—the National Association of Corporate Directors’ (NACD’s) strategic content partners—each recognized as a thought leader in their respective fields of corporate governance.

Article relié :

NACD BoardVision: Private Equity’s Influence on Executive Compensation (bulletproofblog.com)

Interventionnisme des investisseurs activistes VS défenseurs de l’autorité des C.A.


Interventionnisme des investisseurs activistes VS défenseurs de l’autorité des C.A. | Un débat de fond

Il y a deux grands courants de pensée qui divisent le monde de la gouvernance et qui s’opposent « royalement ».

(1) celui des investisseurs activistes qui tentent de tirer profit des failles perçues dans les orientations et la gestion des grandes entreprises cotées, en investissant massivement dans celles-ci et en proposant des changements radicaux de stratégies (fusion, restructuration, recapitalisation, contestation des PCD et des membres de conseils, etc…).

Selon ce groupe, les actionnaires sont rois et on se doit d’intervenir lorsque les entreprises ne sont pas gérées efficacement.

(2) celui des défenseurs de l’autorité des C.A. dans leurs rôles de fiduciaires, représentant les intérêts des actionnaires et des autres parties prenantes.

Selon ce groupe, ce sont les conseils d’administration qui prennent les décisions de nature stratégique en fonction de l’intérêt à long terme des entreprises. Les autorités règlementaires doivent donc intervenir pour restreindre les activités des investissements « court-termistes ».

L’article de Nathan Vardi, publié dans Forbes le 6 août 2013, fait le point sur la situation qui règne dans le monde des investissements à caractère « actif » (hedge funds). Il présente, selon moi, singulièrement bien les arguments invoqués par chaque partie.

Quel est votre position en regard de ces deux conceptions : celui des actionnaires activistes, représenté par Carl Icahn, ou celui des gardiens de la bonne gouvernance, représenté par Martin Lipton ?

Voici quelques extraits de l’article. Veuillez lire l’article de M. Vardi pour plus de détails. Bonne lecture.

The Golden Age Of Activist Investing

Once disparaged as greenmailers and corporate raiders who pillage for quick profit, activist investors have become rock stars and rebranded themselves as advocates of all shareholders, taking on the kind of shareholder watchdog role that institutional investors like big pension funds and mutual funds have long resisted. They are not done rebranding themselves. Peltz, whose Trian Management oversees $6.5 billion, describes his investment style not as activism but as constructivism.” Larry Robbins, who runs $6 billion hedge fund firm Glenview Capital Management, one of the best-performing hedge funds over the last 18 months, wants to be seen as a “suggestivist.” The idea is to appear less threatening while trying to do things like replace the management and board of directors of a company, like Robbins is trying to do at hospital company Health Management Associates. “In Hollywood terms, we are more Mr. Spock than William Wallace,” Robbins recently said. “I get a lot more out of these CEOs by not embarrassing them publicly, by not being viewed as trying to nail their scalp to the wall,” Barry Rosenstein, the prominent activist investor who runs $5 billion Jana Partners, told The Wall Street Journal.

Icahn Lab Conference Room
Icahn Lab Conference Room (Photo credit: Joe Shlabotnik)

Others, however, have a different way of describing what these guys are up to. “In what can only be considered a form of extortion, activist hedge funds are preying on American corporations to create short-term increases in the market price of their stock at the expense of long-term value,” famed lawyer Martin Lipton wrote earlier this year. “The consequences of radical stockholder-centric governance and short-termism prompt a series of questions that cry out for re-examination.” Lipton, the most prominent defender of corporate boards in their battles with activist investors and the inventor of the so-called poison pill defense tactic, even suggests that the new wave of activist investors might be responsible for “a very significant part of American unemployment and a failure to achieve a GDP growth rate sufficient to pay for reasonable entitlements.”

Lipton has been blasting activist investors for decades. But last week activist investing went Hollywood as George Clooney attacked Dan Loeb, who has been criticizing the management of Sony Pictures Entertainment as part of his effort to get Sony to spin off its U.S. entertainment assets. “[Loeb] calls himself an activist investor, and I would call him a carpet bagger,” Clooney told Deadline.com. “What he’s doing is scaring studios and pushing them to make decisions from a place of fear. Why is he buying stock like crazy if he’s so down on things? He’s trying to manipulate the market.” Clooney said activist hedge fund managers like Loeb don’t create jobs, unlike the movie industry that is a significant U.S. exporter…

Nevertheless, activist-investor efforts to drive shareholder value at companies seem to be all over the financial markets.  The renaissance is best typified by billionaire investor Carl Icahn, who is going stronger than ever. With more money at his disposal than ever before, Icahn, now 77, has been a huge player in financial markets in recent months. He has vigorously taken on Michael Dell’s effort to take Dell private, played a role in kicking Aubrey McClendon out of Chesapeake Energy, and is at the center of the billionaire brawl over Herbalife. He has enjoyed rich recent successes from companies ranging from CVR Energy to Netflix. His Icahn Enterprises has seen its stock rise by 57% this year. Icahn hasn’t changed his tune in years and recently argued that “what I do is good for America.”

Activist players are continuing to push the envelope and bringing their brand of investing to new industry and geographic frontiers. Dan Loeb, whose Third Point hedge fund has been one of the best-performing hedge funds over the last 18 months or so, stormed Silicon Valley, sparking sweeping changes to the flailing Internet giant Yahoo’s management and making about $1 billion in realized and paper profits. Now, he’s off to Japan, trying to shake things up at Sony in a country that has long resisted reform at many levels. Loeb is not the only brash American to attack a foreign company and sometimes these guys even manage to win broad support for their efforts in foreign countries. Not long ago, William Ackman struck at Canadian Pacific Railway and his intervention has helped spark a huge run-up in the stock. The business magazine of Canada’s authoritative Globe and Mail newspaper didn’t call him a carpet bagger, rather they branded Ackman, who is not a corporate executive, “CEO of The Year.”

The Golden Age Of Activist Investing (forbes.com)

Hedge Fund News: Daniel Loeb, Dell Inc. (DELL), Herbalife Ltd. (NYSE:HLF) (insidermonkey.com)

Interventionnisme des investisseurs activistes VS défenseurs de l’autorité des C.A. | Un débat de fond


Il y a deux grands courants de pensée qui divisent le monde de la gouvernance et qui s’opposent « royalement ».

(1) celui des investisseurs activistes qui tentent de tirer profit des failles perçues dans les orientations et la gestion des grandes entreprises cotées, en investissant massivement dans celles-ci et en proposant des changements radicaux de stratégies (fusion, restructuration, recapitalisation, contestation des PCD et des membres de conseils, etc…).

Selon ce groupe, les actionnaires sont rois et on se doit d’intervenir lorsque les entreprises ne sont pas gérées efficacement.

(2) celui des défenseurs de l’autorité des C.A. dans leurs rôles de fiduciaires, représentant les intérêts des actionnaires et des autres parties prenantes.

Selon ce groupe, ce sont les conseils d’administration qui prennent les décisions de nature stratégique en fonction de l’intérêt à long terme des entreprises. Les autorités règlementaires doivent donc intervenir pour restreindre les activités des investissements « court-termistes ».

L’article de Nathan Vardi, publié dans Forbes le 6 août 2013, fait le point sur la situation qui règne dans le monde des investissements à caractère « actif » (hedge funds). Il présente, selon moi, singulièrement bien les arguments invoqués par chaque partie.

Quel est votre position en regard de ces deux conceptions : celui des actionnaires activistes, représenté par Carl Icahn, ou celui des gardiens de la bonne gouvernance, représenté par Martin Lipton ?

Voici quelques extraits de l’article. Veuillez lire l’article de M. Vardi pour plus de détails. Bonne lecture.

The Golden Age Of Activist Investing

Once disparaged as greenmailers and corporate raiders who pillage for quick profit, activist investors have become rock stars and rebranded themselves as advocates of all shareholders, taking on the kind of shareholder watchdog role that institutional investors like big pension funds and mutual funds have long resisted. They are not done rebranding themselves. Peltz, whose Trian Management oversees $6.5 billion, describes his investment style not as activism but as constructivism.” Larry Robbins, who runs $6 billion hedge fund firm Glenview Capital Management, one of the best-performing hedge funds over the last 18 months, wants to be seen as a “suggestivist.” The idea is to appear less threatening while trying to do things like replace the management and board of directors of a company, like Robbins is trying to do at hospital company Health Management Associates. “In Hollywood terms, we are more Mr. Spock than William Wallace,” Robbins recently said. “I get a lot more out of these CEOs by not embarrassing them publicly, by not being viewed as trying to nail their scalp to the wall,” Barry Rosenstein, the prominent activist investor who runs $5 billion Jana Partners, told The Wall Street Journal.

Icahn Lab Conference Room
Icahn Lab Conference Room (Photo credit: Joe Shlabotnik)

Others, however, have a different way of describing what these guys are up to. “In what can only be considered a form of extortion, activist hedge funds are preying on American corporations to create short-term increases in the market price of their stock at the expense of long-term value,” famed lawyer Martin Lipton wrote earlier this year. “The consequences of radical stockholder-centric governance and short-termism prompt a series of questions that cry out for re-examination.” Lipton, the most prominent defender of corporate boards in their battles with activist investors and the inventor of the so-called poison pill defense tactic, even suggests that the new wave of activist investors might be responsible for “a very significant part of American unemployment and a failure to achieve a GDP growth rate sufficient to pay for reasonable entitlements.”

Lipton has been blasting activist investors for decades. But last week activist investing went Hollywood as George Clooney attacked Dan Loeb, who has been criticizing the management of Sony Pictures Entertainment as part of his effort to get Sony to spin off its U.S. entertainment assets. “[Loeb] calls himself an activist investor, and I would call him a carpet bagger,” Clooney told Deadline.com. “What he’s doing is scaring studios and pushing them to make decisions from a place of fear. Why is he buying stock like crazy if he’s so down on things? He’s trying to manipulate the market.” Clooney said activist hedge fund managers like Loeb don’t create jobs, unlike the movie industry that is a significant U.S. exporter…

Nevertheless, activist-investor efforts to drive shareholder value at companies seem to be all over the financial markets.  The renaissance is best typified by billionaire investor Carl Icahn, who is going stronger than ever. With more money at his disposal than ever before, Icahn, now 77, has been a huge player in financial markets in recent months. He has vigorously taken on Michael Dell’s effort to take Dell private, played a role in kicking Aubrey McClendon out of Chesapeake Energy, and is at the center of the billionaire brawl over Herbalife. He has enjoyed rich recent successes from companies ranging from CVR Energy to Netflix. His Icahn Enterprises has seen its stock rise by 57% this year. Icahn hasn’t changed his tune in years and recently argued that “what I do is good for America.”

Activist players are continuing to push the envelope and bringing their brand of investing to new industry and geographic frontiers. Dan Loeb, whose Third Point hedge fund has been one of the best-performing hedge funds over the last 18 months or so, stormed Silicon Valley, sparking sweeping changes to the flailing Internet giant Yahoo’s management and making about $1 billion in realized and paper profits. Now, he’s off to Japan, trying to shake things up at Sony in a country that has long resisted reform at many levels. Loeb is not the only brash American to attack a foreign company and sometimes these guys even manage to win broad support for their efforts in foreign countries. Not long ago, William Ackman struck at Canadian Pacific Railway and his intervention has helped spark a huge run-up in the stock. The business magazine of Canada’s authoritative Globe and Mail newspaper didn’t call him a carpet bagger, rather they branded Ackman, who is not a corporate executive, “CEO of The Year.”

The Golden Age Of Activist Investing (forbes.com)

Hedge Fund News: Daniel Loeb, Dell Inc. (DELL), Herbalife Ltd. (NYSE:HLF) (insidermonkey.com)

Comment contrer la nature insidieuse du capitalisme financier ?


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un document émanant d’une présentation d’Yvan Allaire* à la conférence nationale de l’Institut des administrateurs de sociétés (Institute of Corporate Directors) à Toronto le 22 mai 2013 dont le thème était Shareholder Activism: Short vs. Long-termism.

Dans son article, l’auteur prend une position affirmative en tentant d’expliquer les comportements court-termistes des actionnaires (investisseurs) activistes. Ce document, à ma connaissance, n’a pas été traduit en français mais il mérite que l’on s’y penche pour réfléchir à trois questions fondamentales en gouvernance. Les questions soulevées dans le document (traduites en français) sont les suivantes :

(1) La gestion avec une perspective court-termiste représente-t-elle un problème sérieux ?

(2) Les investisseurs activistes sont-ils des joueurs court-termistes dont les actions ont des conséquences négatives pour les entreprises à long terme ?

(3) Les conseils d’administration des sociétés canadiennes doivent-ils être mieux protégés des actions des investisseurs activistes et des offres d’achat hostiles ?

Voici quelques extraits du document ci-dessous. Je vous invite à en prendre connaissance :

Good versus Bad Capitalism: a Call for a Governance Revolution

Bad capitalism is finance-driven capitalism; it is capitalism without true owners, a capitalism in which corporate leaders, motivated by the carrot of lavish incentives and the stick of humiliating replacement, are singularly focused on generating short-term value for shareholders. It is a system where financial operators reap immense riches from activities of no social value.

 The board members of the privatized company, often made up of general partners of the fund, are compensated at a level and in a manner hardly conceivable for board members of a publicly listed company.

Capitalism Plus retail box cover.
Capitalism Plus retail box cover. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
  1. Board members of the newly privatized company must not be « independent » and rarely are; a majority of board members of publicly listed companies must be « independent ».
  2. The boards of listed corporations must discharge fully all their fiduciary and legal responsibilities; that component of governance grabs a good portion of the time available to board members; privatized companies have none of these hassles and can concentrate on strategy, cash flow management, etc.
  3. The board of a privatized companies will call directly on outside consulting firms to assess the company, its competitors and so forth, and the external consultants will report directly to the board. Now imagine that the board of a publicly listed company were to inform management that it intends to hire some firm to audit the company’s strategy and benchmark its performance. That would not fly well and would certainly create severe tensions between the board and management. Management would claim that the board is straying away from its governance role; it would contend that the company regularly gets this sort of studies and reports regularly to the board on their results, etc.

Be that as it may, a governance revolution is in the making. Novel ways of dealing with the insuperable limits of current forms of governance must be found.

Indeed, the theme of this conference could well have been « Good Capitalism versus Bad Capitalism » because short-termism and unchecked activities of speculative funds are emblematic of « bad capitalism », of the kind we must get rid.

Is Governance different in Publicly listed companies? (surenrajdotcom.wordpress.com)

Protect Equity Crowdfund Investors by Strong Corporate Governance (healthycrowdfunder.wordpress.com)

Performance Vs Governance at Disney. (surenrajdotcom.wordpress.com)

Don’t Confuse Free Market Capitalism with Crony Capitalism (yevala.com)

___________________________________________________________

* Yvan Allaire, Ph.D., FRSC, président exécutif, IGOPP

La gestion de la succession du PCD (CEO) par le C.A. | Les nombreux éléments à considérer


Voici un article sur les nombreux éléments à considérer dans le cas du remplacement d’un président et chef de direction (PCD). Les conseils d’administration ne sont pas souvent confrontés à ce genre de décision; mais c’est sûrement l’une des plus importantes décisions qu’ils auront à prendre.

L’auteur présente une sorte de check list de tout ce dont il faut se préoccuper dans les cas de changements de PCD. Cet article, publié par Brian V. Breheny, et paru dans HLS on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, est l’un des plus opérationnels qu’il m’ait été donné de lire. Il sera sûrement d’une grande utilité pour les membres de conseils appelés à vivre cette période critique de la vie des organisations. Je vous recommande d’en tenir compte lors du remplacement d’un PCD.

Notez que l’auteur prend pour acquis que le C.A. a déjà préparé un plan de relève du PCD. Cependant, si ce n’est pas le cas, l’article vous incitera sûrement à concevoir un tel plan ! Bonne lecture.

The Landscape of CEO Succession Issues

A board’s decision as to whether, when and how to terminate the employment of a CEO and hire a successor is among the most critical decisions facing the board of any company—large or small, public or private, established or start-up. In most cases, however, a CEO termination is a rare event and one with respect to which—as would be expected—the board, the company’s general counsel and its human resources professionals may have little or no experience. In addition, the situation is further complicated by contractual, regulatory and personal factors.

Contracts
Contracts (Photo credit: NobMouse)

This post describes the substantive and procedural considerations that boards will want to take into account when there is a change of CEO. In it, we assume that the board has made the business decision relating to CEO succession and is focused on strategy, implementation and minimizing potentially costly and/or embarrassing oversights and errors. Many but not all of the same considerations apply in respect of executive officers other than the CEO, and some additional considerations may apply to such other officers; in any event, their relative significance likely will differ from the case of the CEO.

Communication Practices in CEO Succession (blogs.law.harvard.edu)

The Landscape of CEO Succession Issues (blogs.law.harvard.edu)

Les aspects éthiques de la gouvernance d’entreprise | Un rapport qui prend en compte la réalité européenne (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

The best solutions for governance problems can only come from well-informed corporate shareholders and stakeholders (venitism.blogspot.com)

Propositions des actionnaires américains lors des assemblées annuelles | Tendances observées


Laura J. Finn responsable du blogue Trending in Governance, l’un des blogues en gouvernance du NYSE, nous présente les résultats d’une recherche effectuée sur le site proxymonitor.org qui inventorie l’ensemble des propositions des actionnaires pour les prochaines assemblées annuelles. L’auteure identifie cinq catégories de proposition susceptibles de recevoir un appui significatif des actionnaires :

1. Limiter le nombre de mandats des administrateurs

2. S’incorporer au Delaware

3. Adopter une politique sur la diversité du conseil

4. Limiter la durée des mandats des administrateurs

5. Planifier la succession du PCD

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, les détails concernant ces propositions. Cette tendance générale est-elle également observée au Canada ? Bonne lecture.

Cinq tendances dans les propositions des actionnaires aux É.U. 

(Five Coming Trends in Shareholder Proposals)

Every year shareholders file proposals that garner barely any votes cast in favor by their fellow shareholders. Nevertheless, I like to keep an eye on the “off-beat” corporate governance proposals that are filed each year to see if there may be a coming trend. Here are five such proposals that may gain traction in coming proxy seasons:
1- Curb Excessive Directorships – filed by Kenneth Steiner at three companies this year: AIG, Bank of America, and Exxon Mobil. None of the proposals received more than 6% of votes cast in favor,  but Steiner raised the point that overextended directors may be bad for corporate governance. In the case of AIG, he noted that GMI Ratings, formerly Corporate Library, has rated the company a “high governance risk” since 2007. In all three proposals he asked his fellow shareholders to vote in favor of his proposal “to protect shareholder value.” Apparently, the other shareholders don’t see directors serving on 3 or more boards as problematic.

Network diagram showing corporate interlocks w...

2- Re-incorporate in Delaware – filed by Gerald Armstrong at Chesapeake Energy Corp. This proposal is particularly interesting. After years of shareholders voting in the majority on a number of proposals, like declassifying the board and enacting majority voting, and the company not heeding shareholders’ votes, Armstrong filed this proposal to re-incorporate in the state of Delaware because the state “is known for fairness and integrity.”  Currently, Chesapeake is incorporated in Oklahoma and Armstrong believes the company worked with state legislature to create a law that “all corporations incorporated in Oklahoma with more than 1,000 shareholders be required to have a classified board of directors with three-year terms for each director.” Chesapeake opposed the proposal and the majority of shareholders sided with the company. This energy company is not Delaware-bound, at least for now.

3- Adopt Policy on Board Diversity – filed by NYC Pension Funds at Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold. Currently, the company has no women or minorities on its board, so the purpose of the proposal is four-fold: to include women and minority candidates in the pool of board candidates, expand director searches to include “nominees from both non-executive corporate positions and non-traditional environments such government, academia, and non-profit organizations,” review board composition periodically to find and fill knowledge gaps, and report on the process to shareholders. The company stated in its opposition that it “believes that this proposal would not improve its ability to select the most suitable and qualified candidates for membership on the board and would impose unnecessary administrative burdens and costs.” The shareholders will vote on this proposal next week, July 16. Stay tuned.

4- Director Term Limits – filed by Dennis Rocheleau at General Electric. He argued that term limits “apply to the President of the United States and are in effect for directors at a number of Fortune 500 firms” and believes that GE “need[s] a better board and the sooner the better.” GE argued that term limits would “prevent qualified, experienced and effect directors from serving on the board” and further explained the company believes the proposal was motivated by Rocheleau’s desire to remove specific directors. Shareholders sided with GE, giving a vote of confidence to the company’s nomination and evaluation process.

5- CEO Succession Planning – filed by Laborers’ District Council & Contractors of Ohio at Google. A dozen similar proposals have been filed at Fortune 250 companies in the past three years, though none have received majority support. Google opposed the proposal, stating: “The Leadership Development and Compensation Committee reviews at least annually and recommends to the full board of directors plans for the development, retention, and replacement of executive officers, including the Chief Executive Officer.” At this time, the majority of shareholders feel confident in the board’s ability to handle succession planning without a formal policy.

Shareholder Proposal Developments During the 2013 Proxy Season (blogs.law.harvard.edu)

La recherche de mandats sur des C.A. | Au-delà des contacts !


Plusieurs personnes très qualifiées en gouvernance de sociétés souhaitent trouver une place sur un ou plusieurs conseils d’administration de sociétés cotées. Mais comment s’y prendre ? L’article ci-dessous rédigé par *Boris Groysberg et Deborah Bell et paru dans HBR Blog Network saura sûrement piquer votre curiosité !

Les auteurs proposent une méthode plus acceptable de choisir les membres de conseils que celle de s’en remettre aux administrateurs potentiels reconnus par les membres de C.A. Bien sûr, l’appartenance à des réseaux d’administrateurs et l’approche progressive de l’acceptation des mandats, en commençant par les OBNL, sont des méthodes très pratiquées … mais souvent elles tardent à produire les résultats escomptés.

Les auteurs présentent une autre option laquelle dépend de la mise en place d’un processus de sélection systématique consistant à repérer les personnes possédant les expertises répondant aux besoins de l’entreprise. De plus en plus, la stratégie de recherche de mandats sera de faire connaître son expertise et son expérience auprès des membres des comités de gouvernance et de nomination.

L’article montre que les capacités les plus prisées par les comités de nomination sont (1) la connaissance de l’industrie, (2) les compétences stratégiques et (3) les expertises en finance-audit.

Je vous invite à lire l’article au complet afin de mieux vous préparer à trouver votre place sur des conseils. Vos commentaires sont toujours très appréciés. Bonne lecture !

Joining Boards: It’s Not Just Who You Know That Matters 

For many, a corporate directorship is a career capstone. But attaining one is far from easy. No one can say for sure how to get on a corporate board, but many people point to two routes: the first is to break into the « right » network and the second is to seek a progression of board seats that begins with, for example, a seat on a not-for-profit or community board and eventually results in appointment to a corporate board.

Both paths are problematic — neither is particularly transparent or relies on objective measures and given that many boards are stubborn bastions of white masculinity, pursuing the « right » network can be fraught, especially for women and other diverse candidates. Indeed, our research reinforces that concern: many boards still rely on their own (mostly white, mostly male) networks to fill seats.

There’s a different way — one that is more measurable, controllable and offers greater transparency. It starts with a focus on skills. Although many boards continue to select new members from their own networks, our research suggests that more are beginning to implement objective processes to select members based on the skills and attributes that boards need to be effective. Our 2012 survey, in partnership with WomenCorporateDirectors and Heidrick & Struggles, of more than 1,000 corporate directors across the globe, found that only 48% of the boards had a formal process of determining the combination of skills and attributes required for their board and, therefore, for new directors

We know this approach can work because we’ve seen it: We studied a large corporation that was being split into two public companies for which two new boards had to be created. The chairman wanted to create two balanced boards, with the mix of skills, knowledge, and experience each company needed. He appointed a special team to create an objective, transparent method for selecting the directors. After reviewing the roles and responsibilities of each board and the natures of the new businesses, the team derived lists of the skills each board needed. Then it created a model containing the dimensions critical to a high-performing board, from functional and industry expertise to behavioral attributes. This approach led both companies to recruit board members that were diverse in needed strategic skills. Both boards are on to a good start — demonstrating that when a firm builds a board using a rigorous assessment of the qualities it needs to carry out its governance task, rather than personal networks, the board is better equipped to execute its functions.

In our survey, we also asked about specific skills. We wanted to know which were the strongest skills represented on boards and which were missing. Directors named industry knowledge, strategy, and financial-audit expertise as their strongest skill sets.

Skill Sets Overall

And 43% cited technology expertise, HR-talent management, international-global expertise, and succession planning as the skills missing most on their boards.

______________________________________________

* Boris Groysberg is a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. His  work examines how a firm can be systematic in achieving a sustainable competitive advantage by leveraging its talent at all levels of the organization.

* Deborah Bell is a researcher of organizational behavior whose work focuses on leadership, drivers of success, and organizational effectiveness and dynamics, especially at the board level.

Getting a Seat at the Table (venitism.blogspot.com)

Corporate Director Selection and Recruitment: A Matrix (blogs.law.harvard.edu)

Strategy For Securing a Seat on a Corporate Board (thestreet.com)

Why your business needs an advisory board (hiponaconsulting.wordpress.com)

Renforcement des règles de gouvernance | Une proposition de Richard Leblanc


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un billet publié par Richard Leblanc* sur son blogue Governance Gateway. Il s’agit d’une proposition de changement à trois niveaux :

(1) Renforcement du rôle du C.A. en matière de création de valeur;

(2) Imputabilité de la direction envers le C.A.;

(3) Imputabilité du C.A. envers les actionnaires.

L’auteur nous demande de faire des suggestions dans le but de peaufiner un cas qu’il est en voie de réaliser. Des suggestions concernant cette liste ?

Proposals to Strengthen a Board’s Role in Value Creation, Management Accountability to the Board, and Board Accountability to Shareholders

I.    Increase Board Engagement, Expertise and Incentives to Focus on Value Creation

Reduce the size of the Board.

Increase the frequency of Board meetings.

Limit Director overboardedness.

Limit Chair of the Board overboardedness.

Increase Director work time.

Increase the Board Chair’s role in the value creation process.

Statue of John Harvard, founder of Harvard Uni...
Statue of John Harvard, founder of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the college yard. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Focus the majority of Board time on value creation and company performance.

Increase Director roles and responsibilities relative to value creation.

Increase Director compensation, and match incentive compensation to long-term value creation and individual performance.

Enable Director access to information and reporting Management.

Enable Director and Board access to expertise to inform value creation as needed.

Require active investing in the Company by Directors.

Select Directors who can contribute directly to value creation.

Revise the Board’s committee structure to address value creation.

Hold Management to account.

Disclose individual Director areas of expertise directly related to value creation.

Increase Board engagement focused on value creation.

Establish and fund an independent Office of the Chairman.

Limit Board homogeneity and groupthink.

II.   Increase Director Independence from Management and Management Accountability to the Board

Increase objective Director and advisory independence.

Limit Director interlocks.

Limit over-tenured Directors.

Limit potential Management capture and social relatedness of Directors.

Decrease undue Management influence on Director selection.

Decrease undue Management influence on Board Chair selection.

Increase objective independence of governance assurance providers.

Limit management control of board protocols.

Address fully perceived conflicts of interest.

Establish independent oversight functions reporting directly to Committees of the Board to support compliance oversight.

Match Management compensation with longer-term value creation, corporate performance and risk management.

III.   Increase Director Accountability to Shareholders

The Board Chair and Committee Chairs shall communicate face-to-face and visit regularly with major Shareholders.

Communicate the value creation plan to Shareholders.

Implement integrated, longer-term reporting focused on sustained value creation that includes non-financial performance and investment.

Implement independent and transparent Director performance reviews with Shareholder input linked to re-nomination.

Each Director, each year, shall receive a majority of Shareholder votes cast to continue serving as a Director.

Make it easier for Shareholders to propose and replace Directors.

Limit any undue Management influence on Board – Shareholder communication.

Limit Shareholder barriers to the governance process that can be reasonably seen to promote Board or Management entrenchment.

__________________________________

* Richard W. Leblanc, Associate Professor, Law, Governance & Ethics, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies, of the Bar of Ontario; Summer Faculty 2013 (MGMT S-5018 Corporate Governance) at Harvard University; Faculty at the Directors College; and Research Fellow and Advisory Board Member, Institute for Excellence in Corporate Governance, University of Texas at Dallas, Naveen Jindal School of Management.

Comprendre la culture de l’organisation et agir résolument | Le secret des PCD !


L’une des plus importantes compétences et responsabilités d’un PCD est de connaître les fondements de la culture de son organisation et de s’assurer d’en faire un des éléments-clés de sa gestion.

L’article ci-dessous, publié par Jon Katzenbach and  DeAnne Aguirre dans la revue strategy+business de la firme de consultation Booz & Company est vraiment très utile pour explorer les multiples facettes de la culture des organisations. Pourquoi ? Parce que, bien qu’assez difficile à appréhender, elle demeure le ressort le plus puissant de la performance des entreprises.

L’article présente plusieurs témoignages à cet effet, avec en prime, une petite vidéo de Douglas Conant, CEO de Campbell Soup  qui nous explique comment entrer en relation avec les employés en mettant une paire de souliers de course.

Comme moi, vous serez sûrement fascinés par la lecture de cet article. Bonne lecture. Qu’en pensez-vous ?

Culture and the Chief Executive

It is striking to see how many chief executives see their most important responsibility as being the leader of the company’s culture. According to Ginni Rometty, CEO of IBM, “Culture is your company’s number one asset.” Her counterpart at Microsoft, Steve Ballmer, has said, “Everything I do is a reinforcement or not of what we want to have happen culturally.” In another typical remark from the C-suite, Starbucks Corporation CEO Howard Schultz has written that “so much of what Starbucks achieved was because of [its employees] and the culture they fostered.” Researchers such as former Harvard Business School professors John Kotter and James Heskett have also found consistent correlation between robust, engaged cultures and high-performance business results (as described in their book, Corporate Culture and Performance [Free Press, 1992]). But most business leaders don’t need that evidence; they’ve seen plenty of correlation in their own workplace every day.

Organizational Learning Culture Mind Map
Organizational Learning Culture Mind Map (Photo credit: kvalunas)

Recognizing the importance of culture in business is not the same thing as being an effective cultural chief executive. The CEO is the most visible leader in a company. His or her direct engagement in all facets of the company’s culture can make an enormous difference, not just in how people feel about the company, but in how they perform. Schultz described the CEO’s role this way in his book Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life without Losing Its Soul (Rodale Books, 2012): “Like crafting the perfect cup of coffee, creating an engaging, respectful, trusting workplace culture is not the result of any one thing. It’s a combination of intent, process, and heart, a trio that must constantly be fine-tuned.”

A company’s culture is the collection of self-sustaining patterns of behaving, feeling, thinking, and believing, the patterns that determine “the way we do things around here.” At its best, an organization’s culture is an immense source of value. It enables, energizes, and enhances its employees and thus fosters ongoing high performance. At its worst, the culture can be a drag on productivity and emotional commitment, undermining long-term success. Most companies are so large and complex that the culture acts in both ways at once. Indeed, the culture of a large company is typically made up of several interwoven subcultures, all affecting and responding to one another.

How to Make Culture Work for You (csrtransblog.wordpress.com)

How Corporate Culture is Formed . . . (johnrchildress.com)

Five Critical Questions About Organization Culture That People Avoid Asking. (mootee.typepad.com)

Dix leçons tirées d’une multitude d’entrevues avec des PCD de PME


Quelles leçons peut-on tirer des entrevues avec les PCD (CEO) d’entreprises de petites capitalisations. C’est ce que nous présente Adam J. Epstein*, un spécialiste de « hedge fund » qui investit des centaines de millions de dollars dans les petites entreprises. L’article a été publié dans mc2MicroCap par Ian Cassel.

J’ai trouvé les conseils très pertinents pour les personnes intéressées à connaître la réalité des évaluations d’entreprises par des investisseurs privés. Qu’en pensez-vous ?

10 Lessons Learned from Interviewing Hundreds of MicroCap CEOs

1)    Preparation – there is no reason to waste your time and someone else’s by sitting down with a CEO to discuss their company without preparing – really preparing.  To me, “really preparing” doesn’t mean looking at Yahoo Finance for a few minutes in the taxi on the way to the meeting, or flipping through the company’s PowerPoint on your phone.  That kind of preparation is akin to walking up a few flights of stairs with some grocery bags to get ready for climbing Mt. Rainier.  To be really prepared for a first meeting means reading/skimming the most recent 10K, the most recent 10Q, the most recent proxy filing, the management presentation, any previous management presentations (more on this later), a recent sell-side company or industry report, and an Internet search of the management team’s backgrounds (with particular emphasis on any prior SEC, NASD, or other state/federal legal problems).  It’s hard to overemphasize how many would-be micro-cap investing disasters can be headed off at the pass by reading what’s said, and not said, and then having the opportunity to ask the CEO directly about what you’ve found.

Stream Near Mt Rainier

2)    Non-Starters – for better or worse, the micro-cap world is home to some “colorful” management teams.  After all of the time served in this regard, absolutely nothing surprises me anymore.  I have found CEOs who were simultaneously running 3 companies, CEOs who were banned from running a public company by the SEC, management presentations that were largely plagiarized, CEOs who shouted profanities in response to basic questions about their “skin in the game,” and CEOs who not only didn’t understand Reg. FD, but clearly didn’t even know it existed.  When in doubt, it’s much better not to invest at all than to make a bad investment; fortunately there are always thousands of other companies to consider.

3)    Company .PPT – these presentations speak volumes about what kind of company you are dealing with if you’re paying attention: a) my colleagues and I came up with a golden rule during my institutional investing tenure, namely that the length of a .ppt presentation is, more often than not, inversely proportional to the quality of the micro-cap company being presented (i.e., any micro-cap company that can’t be adequately presented in less than 20 slides is a problem, and 15 is even better); b) if the slides are too complex to understand on a standalone basis then either the company has a problem or you’re about to invest in something you don’t sufficiently understand – neither is good; c) NEO bios, market information, service/product/IP, strategy, financials, and use of proceeds should all receive equal billing (when buying a house, would you go and visit a house with an online profile that only features pictures of the front yard and the garage?); d) .ppt formatting and spelling/syntax problems are akin to showing up at an important job interview with giant pieces of spinach in your teeth; e) when reviewing use of proceeds (for a prospective financing) or milestones, look up prior investor presentations to see how well they did with prior promises – history often repeats itself; f) treat forward looking projections for what they typically are – fanciful at best, and violations of Reg. FD at worst; and g) micro-cap companies that flaunt celebrities as directors, partners, or investors should be approached cautiously.

4)    NEO Bios – as Ian Cassel often points out quite rightly in my opinion, micro-cap investing is an exercise in wagering on jockeys more than horses.  One of the principal ways prospective investors have to assess jockeys is the manner in which professional backgrounds are set forth; i.e., management bios.  Like a company .ppt, bios of named executive officers speak volumes about the people being described. Here are some things to look out for: a) bios that don’t contain specific company names (at least for a 10 year historic period) typically don’t for a reason, and it’s unlikely to be positive (e.g., “Mr. Smith has held senior management roles with several large technology companies”); b) it’s a good idea to compare SEC bios with bios you might find for the same people on other websites (remember the “three company CEO” referred to earlier?); c) bios that don’t contain any educational references or only highlight executive programs at Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, etc.; d) company websites that don’t have any management/director bios (surprising how many there are); and e) CEOs and CFOs who have never held those jobs before in a public company (to be clear, lots of micro-cap NEOs are “first-timers,” but it’s something you should at least factor into the risk profile of the investment).

5)    Management Conduct – just as management bios speak volumes, so does their conduct at in person one-on-one meetings.  More specifically: a) organized, professional corporate leaders rarely look disheveled or have bad hygiene; b) service providers chosen by companies also represent the company, so the previous observation applies to bankers/lawyers as well; c) CEOs who are overly chatty about non-business issues might not be keen to talk about their companies; d) if a CEO seems glued to their .ppt presentation (i.e., essentially just reading you the slides), tell them to close their laptops and just talk about the company with no visual aids – you will learn an awful lot about them in the ensuing 5 minutes; e) be on the lookout for NEOs or service providers cutting each other off, disagreeing with each other, or talking over one another;  f) when asking questions of the CEO or CFO watch their body language – moving around in their seats, running hands through their hair, perspiration, and less eye contact are nonverbal signs of duress (it’s one of the reasons why in-person meetings with management are always preferable to phone calls); g) if there are more than one NEOs in attendance, are they listening to each other (it’s rarely a great sign when other execs are looking at their phones during meetings); h) is the CEO providing careful, thoughtful answers or are they shooting from the hip – loose lips virtually always sink ships; i) did the CEO answer any questions with “I don’t know” – even great CEOs can’t possibly know the answer to every question about their companies; and j) something partially tongue-in-cheek just to think about – we know from everyday life that when someone starts a sentence with “with all due respect” what inevitably  follows is, well, something disrespectful, and when a CEO repeatedly says “to be honest” what inevitably follows is….

6)    Service Providers – micro-cap service providers (bankers, lawyers, auditors, IR firms, etc.) can run the gamut from highly professional to so bad that they can actually jeopardize companies with their advice.  While it certainly can take a while to learn “the good, the bad, and the ugly” in the micro-cap ecosystem, you can learn a lot about the CEO by asking him/her to take a few minutes to explain why the company’s service providers are the best choices for the shareholders.  It perhaps goes without saying that if a CEO can’t speak artfully, and convincingly in this regard, then buyer beware.

7)    Corporate Governance – spans the full continuum in micro-cap companies from top-notch to nothing more than a mirage.  One way to quickly ferret out which flavor of governance you’re dealing with is to ask a CEO to succinctly set forth the company’s strategy (i.e., goals, risks, opportunities, customers, etc.), and subsequently ask the CEO to describe how each seated director assists with the fundamental elements of achieving that strategy.  Though oversimplified, material disconnects in this regard are very likely to illustrate some governance challenges.  Also, ask the CEO how each of the directors came to the company; if all of the directors were brought to the company by the CEO, it’s fair to ask the CEO how confident an investor should be that the board is suitably independent to monitor the CEOs performance (one of the principal roles of all boards).

8)    Public Company IQ – easily one of the biggest problems with investing in the micro-cap arena is the conspicuous lack of (relevant, successful) capital markets and corporate finance experience in boardrooms and C-suites.  As alluded to earlier, it’s a fact of life that a large percentage of micro-cap officers and directors lack appreciable tenures in shepherding small public companies (to be clear, this doesn’t mean they aren’t smart, successful, and sophisticated, it just means they haven’t had lots of experience in small public companies).  Unlike larger public companies, small public companies can execute relatively well, and still toil in obscurity creating little or no value for shareholders.   It’s a good idea to evaluate the same when meeting with management, because companies with low “public company IQs” are more likely to underperform all else being equal.  Be on the lookout for CEOs who: a) can’t articulate a sensible strategy for maintaining or increasing trading volume; b) seem to regularly undertake financings that are more dilutive than similarly situated peer companies; c) frequently authorize the issuance of press releases that don’t appear to contain material information; d) blame some or all of their capital markets challenges on short-seller/market-making conspiracy theories; and e) can’t name the company’s largest 5 shareholders, their approximate holdings, and the last time he/she spoke to each.

9)    Follow-Up – CEOs who promise to follow-up after meetings with clarified answers, customer references, or more information but don’t are tacitly underscoring for you that they are either disorganized, disingenuous, don’t care about investors or all three.  The opposite is also not good; for example, if the company’s internal or external IR professionals subsequently convey information that seems inappropriate (from a Reg. FD standpoint) – it probably is.

10) Cautionary Note – Bernard Madoff undoubtedly would have passed these tests and a lot more with flying colors.  Sometimes the “bad guys” are really smart and charming and you’re going to either lose most of your money or get defrauded, or both. It’s happened to me, and it’s maddening and humbling at the same time.  Hence, the apt phrase: high risk, high return.

It’s easy, in my experience anyway, to get so skeptical about micro-cap companies that it can be paralyzing.  But, just when you’re about to throw in the towel, along comes a compelling growth prospect run by management with as much integrity and skill as the day is long, and it serves as a poignant reminder of everything that’s great about investing in small public companies.

Like most “best-of” lists, this isn’t intended to be exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination.  In addition to making money and promoting US jobs/innovation, one of the best parts of investing in small public companies in my opinion is continuing to hone the craft, and learn from other investors and their experiences.  Accordingly, add/subtract per your own experiences, and happy hunting.

_________________________________________

*Adam J. Epstein advises small-cap boards through his firm, Third Creek Advisors, LLC, is a National Association of Corporate Directors Board Leadership Fellow, and the author of The Perfect Corporate Board: A Handbook for Mastering the Unique Challenges of Small-Cap Companies, (McGraw Hill, 2012).  He was co-founder and principal of Enable Capital Management, LLC.

Even micro-cap companies not immune to proxy battles (business.financialpost.com)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Un modèle d’affaires pertinent pour actualiser les principes du développement durable


Cet article, rédigé par Marc Bertoneche et Cornis van der Lugt, est récemment paru dans Director Notes, une publication du Conference Board. Les auteurs présentent les résultats d’un modèle d’affaires efficace pour évaluer les retombées financières des actions environnementales et du développement durable.

L’article explique le fonctionnement du modèle d’affaires à l’aide de deux indicateurs principaux : (1) les actions de développement durable et (2) les indicateurs de performance financière. Ce modèle conceptuel est illustré par l’utilisation de plusieurs variables représentées dans le tableau ci-dessous.

Je vous invite à lire cet article qui fera sans doute école dans le design d’un cadre méthodologique qui réconcilie les principes du développement durable avec les impératifs économiques et financiers des entreprises.

The sustainability Business case

While much has been published on the business case for sustainability during the last decade, businesses have been slow to adopt the green innovation and sustainability agenda. Reasons include a lack of consistency in the indicators employed by analysts, and a failure to effectively incorporate financial value drivers into the equation. This article defines a green business case model that includes seven core financial value drivers of special interest to financial analysts.

In the following pages, we present a business case model that focuses on environmental action areas known to sustainability experts and their link with important indicators widely used by financial officers and investors. We present a model in which sustainability initiatives are assessed in an economic manner and pursued on the basis of a clear link to financial performance. The model positions sustained financial performance and market value as the ultimate test, with cost benefit analysis at the heart of its approach. As far as dependent variables are concerned, we suggest research and analysis should focus on the core financial value drivers defined by Alfred Rappaport, author of Creating Shareholder Value, and others since the 1980s. These drivers help define a longer-term approach that is forward looking and strategic.

Click image to enlarge

Two reasons to ignore the business case for sustainability- and what we can do about it (alexaroscoe.com)

Grands défis de gouvernance pour les entreprises cotées en 2013 | Un recueil de la NACD


Vous trouverez, ci-joint, une publication de la NACD qui présente les grands défis qui attendent les administrateurs de sociétés au cours des prochaines années. Ce document est un recueil de lectures publié par les partenaires de la NACD : Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc., KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute, Marsh & McLennan Companies, NASDAQ OMX, Pearl Meyer & Partners et Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.

Vous y trouverez un ensemble d’articles très pertinents sur les sujets de l’heure en gouvernance. Chaque année, la NACD se livre à cet exercice et publie un document très prisé !

Voici comment les auteurs se sont répartis les thèmes les plus « hot » en gouvernance.

English: 1166 Avenue of the Americas (Marsh & ...
English: 1166 Avenue of the Americas (Marsh & McLennan Headquarters) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
    1. What to Do When an Activist Investor Comes Calling par Heidrick & Struggle
    2. KPMG’s Audit Committee Priorities for 2013 par KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute
    3. Board Risk Checkup—Are You Ready for the Challenges Ahead ? par Marsh & McLennan Companies
    4. Boardroom Discussions par NASDAQ OMX
    5. Paying Executives for Driving Long-Term Success par Pearl Meyer & Partners
    6. What Boards Should Focus on in 2013 par Weil, Gotshal and Manges, LLP

NACD Insights and Analysis – Governance Challenges: 2013 and Beyond

Today, directors are operating in a new environment. Shareholders, regulators, and stakeholders have greater influence on the boardroom than ever before. In addition, risks and crisis situations are occurring with greater frequency and amplitude. Directors have a responsibility to ensure their companies are prepared for these challenges—present and future.This compendium provides insights and practical guidance from the nation’s leading boardroom experts—the National Association of Corporate Directors’ (NACD’s) strategic content partners—each recognized as a thought leader in their respective fields of corporate governance.

Article relié :

NACD BoardVision: Private Equity’s Influence on Executive Compensation (bulletproofblog.com)

Les comportements « court-termistes » sont les ennemis de la création de valeur !


Êtes-vous intéressés à comprendre les comportements à court terme adoptés par les organisations en réponse aux nombreuses occasions qu’ont les gens de profiter de situations non-éthiques, à l’encontre de la création de valeur à long terme ?

Si vous vous demandez quels sont les facteurs-clés qui conduisent aux abus reliés à des comportements de court terme et, surtout, si vous voulez connaître les moyens susceptibles d’améliorer la situation, l’article de Malcolm Salter, professeur à la Harvard Business School, vous fascinera.

Vous pouvez lire le résumé qui suit. Si votre curiosité l’emporte, vous pouvez télécharger le document au complet.

Short-Termism at Its Worst

Researchers and business leaders have long decried short-termism: the excessive focus of executives of publicly traded companies—along with fund managers and other investors—on short-term results. The central concern is that short-termism discourages long-term investments, threatening the performance of both individual firms and the U.S. economy.

English: Detail from Corrupt Legislation. Mura...
English: Detail from Corrupt Legislation. Mural by Elihu Vedder. Lobby to Main Reading Room, Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C. Main figure is seated atop a pedestal saying « CORRUPT LEGISLATION ». Artist’s signature is dated 1896. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the paper, How Short-Termism Invites Corruption…and What To Do About It, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, I argue that short-termism also invites institutional corruption—that is, institutionally supported behavior that, while not necessarily unlawful, erodes public trust and undermines a company’s legitimate processes, core values, and capacity to achieve espoused goals. Institutional corruption in business typically entails gaming society’s laws and regulations, tolerating conflicts of interest, and persistently violating accepted norms of fairness, among other things.

My argument starts by describing the twin problems of short-termism and institutional corruption and showing how the latter has led to a diminution of public trust in many of our leading firms and industries. Focusing most specifically on the pervasive gaming of society’s rules (with examples drawn from the finance industry, among others), I then explain how short-termism invites gaming and identify the principal sources of short-termism in today’s economy. The most significant sources of short-termism that collectively invite institutional corruption include: shifting beliefs about the purposes and responsibilities of the modern corporation; the concomitant rise of a new financial culture; misapplied performance metrics; perverse incentives; our vulnerability to hard-wired behavioral biases; the decreasing tenure of institutional leaders; and the bounded knowledge of corporate directors, which prevents effective board oversight.

I next turn to the question of what is to be done about short-termism and the institutional corruption it invites. In this final section of the paper, I discuss reforms and recommendations related to the improvement of board oversight; the adoption of compensation principles and practices that can help mitigate the destructive effects of inappropriate metrics, perverse incentives, and hard-wired preferences for immediate satisfactions; the termination of quarterly earnings guidance; and the elimination of the built-in, short-term bias embedded in our current capital gains tax regime.

The full paper is available for download here.

Short-Termism (projecteve.com)

In defence of short-termism (stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com)

The Reality of Short Termism Per Mark Roe (concurringopinions.com)

Leçons à tirer sur la séparation des rôles de PCD et de PCA | L’exemple de JPMorgan


Aujourd’hui, je vous propose la lecture de l’excellent article d’Ira Millstein* de la firme Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, paru dans Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, sur la saga JPMorgan Chase qui a alimenté les discussions en gouvernance au cours des derniers mois. Maintenant que la poussière sur l’échec de la séparation des rôles de PCD et PCA et sur l’opportunité d’utiliser un « administrateur principal » (Lead Directeur) est tombée, il y a certainement lieu d’en tirer des leçons très pertinentes pour le futur. C’est ce que fait admirablement bien l’auteure en précisant les différences fondamentales entre les rôles.

Governance Lessons from the Dimon Dust-Up

Dans le cas de JPMorgan Chase, la bataille de M. Dimon pour conserver ses fonctions de CEO et de Chairman a été féroce. Celui-ci a gagné son pari parce que les circonstances lui étaient favorables (le timing était bon). Selon l’auteure, il aurait été préférable de faire voter les actionnaires sur la séparation des rôles, pour le prochain CEO. L’article montre (1) qu’il est préférable d’avoir une séparation des rôles, (2) que la nomination d’un administrateur principal n’est pas la solution miracle parce que celui-ci n’aura jamais tout le pouvoir et toute la légitimité d’un président du conseil indépendant et (3) que dans les cas où un administrateur principal est requis, il faut définir son rôle en lui donnant le pouvoir et l’autorité nécessaire.

Jamie Dimon,  CEO of JPMorgan Chase
Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase (Photo credit: jurvetson)

Voici un extrait de cet article ainsi qu’un tableau montrant les comparaisons entre deux modèles de gouvernance : le modèle du président de conseil indépendant et le modèle dual « Chair/CEO ».

Substantial work was done on this issue by the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), in its Blue Ribbon Commission Report “The Effective Lead Director.” The role of the lead director as viewed in that report is not as strong a position as the independent chair, as indicated in a comparison chart included as Appendix A (below). In comparing the key duties of a typical independent chair to a lead director, the powers and duties of a lead director fall short in the following areas:

  1. Power to call a board meeting: Unlike the chair, the lead director typically does not have convening power but only suggests to the chair/CEO that a meeting be called.
  2. Control of the board agenda and board information: Unlike the chair who bears responsibility and authority for determining both the board agenda and the information that will be provided, the lead director collaborates with the chair/CEO and other directors on these issues.
  3. Authority to represent the board in shareholder and stakeholder communications: Typically the chair/CEO represents the board with shareholders and external stakeholders; the lead director plays a role only if specifically asked by the chair/CEO or the board directly.

Appendix A Comparison of the Non-Executive Chair and the Chair/CEO Models

Click image to enlarge Click image to enlarge

__________________________________________________________

*Ira Millstein is a senior partner at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and co-chair of the Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership at Columbia Law School.

Making a Case for One Leader at JPMorgan (dealbook.nytimes.com)

JPMorgan Shareholders Reject CEO-Chairman Split in Win for Dimon (bloomberg.com)

JPMorgan shareholders support Dimon’s dual roles in vote – Reuters (reuters.com)

Jamie Dimon needs a boss (blogs.reuters.com)

Jamie Dimon Vote: A New Referendum on Governance (cnbc.com)

Jamie Dimon and Entire JPM Board of Directors Overcome Shareholder Proposals (dailyfinance.com)

Une méthodologie de l’évaluation de la gouvernance des sociétés | ASEAN Corporate Governance Scorecard


Voici un article intéressant publié dans  le 11 juin 2013 et qui présente un système d’évaluation de la qualité de la gouvernance dans un certain nombre de pays asiatiques, basé sur cinq (5) principes-clés. Cette façon de juger de la valeur de la gouvernance par secteur d’activité m’a intéressée.

La méthodologie utilisée n’est pas suffisamment décrite mais la pondération accordée aux cinq dimensions a attiré mon attention, particulièrement le fait que l’on accorde 40 % des points à la « responsabilité du conseil d’administration ».

Vous trouverez ci-dessous les objectifs poursuivis ainsi que la pondération retenue, suivi de l’exemple indonésien. Je vous invite donc à lire cet article et à partager vos impressions d’une telle démarche d’évaluation de la gouvernance. Le lien suivant vous mènera à la version complète du rapport : ASEAN Corporate Governance Scorecard – rapport complet.

 

The ASEAN Capital Markets Forum (ACMF) and the Asian Development Bank recently established a joint initiative called the ASEAN Corporate Governance Scorecard. Corporate governance refers to the system of governance which controls and directs corporations, and monitors their actions and policies.

The stated objective of the ASEAN Corporate Governance Scorecard is to:

(1) Raise the corporate governance standards and practices of ASEAN publicly listed companies (PLCs);

(2) Give greater international visibility to well-governed ASEAN PLCs and showcase them as investable companies; and

(3) Complement other ACMF initiatives and promote ASEAN as an asset class.

English: The flags of ASEAN nations raised in ...
English: The flags of ASEAN nations raised in MH Thamrin Avenue, Jakarta, during 18th ASEAN Summit, Jakarta, 8 May 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Scorecard judges five key principles of corporate governance in each nation:

  1. Rights of shareholders (10 percent);
  2. Role of stakeholders (10 percent);
  3. Equitable treatment of shareholders (15 percent);
  4. Disclosure and transparency (25 percent); and
  5. Responsibilities of the board (40 percent)

The percentages indicate the allocated weight of each principle in determining the Scorecard of each country.

The ASEAN countries that participated in the initiative include Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Please find below a summary of how the ASEAN countries fared.

The complete report can be found here.

Indonesia

Average corporate governance score: 43.4 percent

Maximum score: 75.4 percent

Minimum score: 20.8 percent

Average corporate governance score by sector:

State-owned enterprises (SOEs): 62.2 percent;

Banks: 58.9 percent;

Non-banks: 40.4 percent; and

Private Companies: 39.9 percent

The higher scores listed for banks and SOEs are a result of those sectors being held under closer scrutiny by the Indonesian Central Bank and Ministry of SOEs, which significantly enhances the corporate governance practices of these companies.

The report found that a majority of PLCs in Indonesia still do not practice corporate governance at an international standard. Many of the corporate governance practices included in the Scorecard are voluntary practices, but the report details that Indonesian PLCs often only implement the mandatory practices, or the bare minimum necessary.

Furthermore, Indonesia’s corporate governance code does not have a “comply or explain” requirement, which has resulted in many PLCs not referring to the code at all. Therefore, they are potentially unaware of the other corporate governance practices that can be voluntarily implemented.

Corporate Governance in Developing countries. (surenrajdotcom.wordpress.com)

Corporate governance in multicultural organization (leadershipbyvirtue.blogspot.com)

ASEAN Economic Community is Coming, What Does it Mean for Asian Tech Startups? (techinasia.com)

Sept étapes à considérer dans l’évaluation des conseils d’administration et des administrateurs


Cet article rédigé par Geoffrey KIEL, James BECK et Jacques GRISÉ (1) et paru dans les Documents de travail de la Faculté des sciences de l’administration en 2008 est toujours d’actualité.

Il présente un guide pratique des questions clés que les conseils d’administration doivent prendre en considération lorsqu’ils planifient une évaluation.

On met l’accent sur l’utilité d’avoir des évaluations bien menées ainsi que sur les sept étapes à suivre pour des évaluations efficaces d’un conseil d’administration et des administrateurs. Bonne lecture.

SEPT ÉTAPES À SUIVRE POUR DES ÉVALUATIONS EFFICACES D’UN CONSEIL D’ADMINISTRATION ET DES ADMINISTRATEURS

 

Lorsqu’une crise se produit au sein d’une société, comme celles qu’ont connues Nortel et Hollinger International, les intervenants, les médias, les organismes de réglementation et la collectivité se tournent vers le conseil d’administration pour trouver des réponses. Étant donné que ce dernier est le chef décisionnel ultime de la société, il est responsable des actions et du rendement de la société.Main entrance of the Price Building, in the ol...

Le défi actuel que doivent relever les conseils d’administration consiste à accroître la valeur des organisations qu’ils gouvernent. Grâce à l’évaluation du rendement, les conseils d’administration peuvent s’assurer qu’ils ont les connaissances, les compétences et la capacité de relever ce défi.

Plusieurs guides et normes de pratiques exemplaires reconnaissent cette notion. Ainsi, la Commission des valeurs mobilières de l’Ontario indique dans les lignes directrices sur la gouvernance des sociétés (NP 58-201) que « le conseil d’administration, ses comités et chacun de ses administrateurs devraient faire l’objet régulièrement d’une évaluation à l’égard de leur efficacité et de leur contribution ».

L’évaluation du conseil d’administration est trop souvent perçue comme un mal nécessaire – un processus mécanique consistant à cocher des points sur une liste qui, en bout de ligne, a peu de valeur réelle pour le conseil d’administration si ce n’est pour satisfaire aux exigences en matière de conformité. Toutefois… un processus efficace d’évaluation du conseil d’administration peut donner lieu à une transformation.

Une publication du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS), sous forme de questions et réponses sur la gouvernance, a été conçue à l’intention des administrateurs nommés par le gouvernement du Québec comme membre d’un conseil d’administration d’une société d’État ou d’un organisme gouvernemental. Celle-ci vise à répondre aux questions les plus courantes qu’un administrateur nouvellement nommé peut légitimement se poser en matière de gouvernance. On y indique qu’ « une évaluation faite à intervalles périodiques est essentielle pour assurer le maintien d’une gouvernance efficace » (2).

Cet article offrira une approche pratique en matière d’évaluations efficaces des conseils d’administration et des administrateurs en appliquant un cadre comportant sept étapes qui pose les questions clés que tous les conseils d’administration devraient prendre en considération lorsqu’ils planifient une évaluation. Même les conseils d’administration efficaces peuvent tirer profit d’une évaluation bien menée.

Comme nous l’avons résumé dans le tableau 1, une évaluation menée adéquatement peut contribuer considérablement à des améliorations du rendement à trois niveaux : organisation, conseil d’administration et administrateur. Selon Lawler et Finegold « les conseils qui évaluent leurs membres et qui s’évaluent ont tendance à être plus efficaces que ceux qui ne le font pas ». Toutefois, il faut souligner que ces avantages ne sont possibles qu’au moyen d’une évaluation du conseil d’administration menée de manière appropriée; si l’évaluation n’est pas faite correctement, cela peut causer de la méfiance parmi les membres du conseil d’administration et entre le conseil lui-même et la direction.

Une publication de l’École d’administration publique du Québec (ENAP), produite en collaboration avec le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS), présente une section traitant de l’évaluation de la performance du conseil d’administration (3).

Selon les auteurs, « L’évaluation est une composante essentielle d’une saine gouvernance d’entreprise. Elle permet de jeter un regard sur la façon dont les décisions ont été prises et sur la manière d’exercer la gestion des activités de l’organisation et ce, dans une perspective d’amélioration continue… Il incombe au président du conseil d’instaurer une culture d’évaluation du rendement et de la performance. Pour ce faire, il doit veiller à la mise en place d’un processus d’évaluation clair, à l’élaboration de règles et d’outils pertinents, à la définition des responsabilités de chaque intervenant dans le processus d’évaluation, à la diffusion de l’information et à la mise en place des correctifs nécessaires ». Dans cette publication, on présente dix outils détaillés d’évaluations (questionnaires) qui concernent les groupes cibles suivants :

1. l’évaluation du conseil

2. l’évaluation du fonctionnement du conseil

3. l’évaluation du président du conseil

4. l’évaluation d’un membre de conseil

5. l’évaluation du comité de gouvernance et d’éthique

6. l’évaluation du comité de vérification

7. l’évaluation du comité des ressources humaines

8. l’évaluation du fonctionnement d’un comité

9. l’évaluation d’un membre de comité

10. l’évaluation du président d’un comité

_______________________________________

(1) Geoffrey Kiel, Ph.D., premier vice-chancelier délégué et doyen de l’École d’administration, University of Notre Dame, Australie, et président de la société Effective Governance Pty Ltd, James Beck, directeur général, Effective Governance Pty Ltd, Jacques Grisé, Ph.D., F.Adm.A., collaborateur spécial du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS), Faculté des sciences de l’administration, Université Laval, Québec.

(2) Collège des administrateurs de sociétés, Être un administrateur de sociétés d’état : 16 questions et réponses sur la gouvernance, Faculté des sciences de l’administration, Université Laval, 2007.

(3) ENAP, Les devoirs et responsabilités d’un conseil d’administration, Guide de référence, Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, 2007.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

L’établissement d’une juste rémunération du PCD | Responsabilité absolue du C.A.


Aujourd’hui, je vous propose la lecture de l’article d’Adam Davidson, publié dans le New York Times du 29 mai 2013. L’auteur présente une excellente analyse des facteurs qui influencent la rémunération du PCD et montre comment le conseil d’administration doit jouer un rôle capital dans l’établissement d’une rémunération juste et efficace.

Voici un extrait de l’article. Bonne lecture. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.

C.E.O.’s Don’t Need to Earn Less. They Need to Sweat More

« Most C.E.O.’s used to be able to handle their pay negotiations in private, but the Dodd-Frank reforms, which were passed in 2010, now give shareholders the right to vote on executive compensation. This has helped usher in a so-called “say on pay” revolution, which tries to stop executives from making more money when their companies don’t do that well. In Switzerland, a recent nationwide referendum, passed 2 to 1, gave shareholders the right to restrict the pay for the heads of Swiss companies. The European Union is likely to vote on a similar measure by the end of the year.

Economically speaking, this is more than a little odd. Shareholders should be motivated to pay their C.E.O.’s according to their success. But doing so involves a tricky dance known to game theorists as the principal-agent problem: how does an employer (the principal) motivate a worker (the agent) to pursue the principal’s interest? This principal-agent problem is everywhere. (Do you pay a contractor per day of work or per project? Do you pay salespeople by the hour or on commission?) It becomes particularly thorny when the agent knows a lot more about his job than the principal.

Boards and chief executives don’t often suffer from Costanza-like ineptitude, but they are harder to rein in. They are often rewarded when they don’t succeed but are not usually penalized enough when they do a lackluster job. Lucian Bebchuk, a professor at Harvard Law School and perhaps the leading academic voice for corporate reform, told me that the problem isn’t (just) greed. It’s the boards of directors. The directors are supposed to represent the stockholders’ interests, he says, but most public firms, where C.E.O.’s can have considerable influence over board appointments, neuter those interests. They are structured so that a board tends to side with its chief.

Excessive C.E.O. pay, Bebchuk says, is a manifestation of a deeper problem. A bad C.E.O. pay package can cost shareholders millions; a corporation that is being poorly overseen by its board can cost billions. “Shareholder rights in the U.S. are still quite weak relative to what they are in other advanced economies,” he explained. His solution is to pass laws that make it easier for shareholders to vote out boardmembers who fail to discipline underperforming chief executives. This, he argues, will motivate them to push back against executives that do an underwhelming job. At the very least, all the attention would keep boardmembers and C.E.O.’s on their toes. And a multitude of better-run companies would result in billions, perhaps trillions, of wealth returned to the economy ».

Principal Agent Problems in Government (sympathyandbureaucracy.com)

Remuneration Programs: A Principal Agent Theory perspective of CEO Remuneration Programs (projectsparadise.com)

Statistiques et constats sur le processus de succession des PCD (CEO)


Ce billet présente le résumé d’une étude, produite par le Conference Board et récemment publiée sur le site de Harvard Law School Forun on Corporate Governance and Financial Régulation, laquelle fait état de la planification de la relève des PCD (CEO). L’étude intitulée CEO Succession Practices (2013 Edition) analyse les cas de rotation des PCD dans les entreprises du S&P 500. Le rapport présente les résultats en quatre sections :

Les tendances en matière de planification de la relève de 2000 à 2012 ainsi que la relation entre la performance des entreprises et le départ ou l’arrivée d’un PCD;

Les pratiques en matière de succession du PCD en 2012 : les responsabilités du conseil, le rôle du PCD démissionnaire au conseil et la nature de la divulgation aux actionnaires;

Une analyse des particularités de plusieurs cas célèbres de succession de PCD en 2012;

Divers exemples montrant comment l’activisme des actionnaires a une influence grandissante sur le processus de la planification de la relève en 2012.

Vous pouvez vous procurer une copie complète de l’étude en vous adressant à matteo.tonello@conference-board.org.

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, les principaux constats dégagés par la recherche. Bonne lecture. Vos commentaires sont appréciés.

Statistics on CEO Succession in the S&P 500

Despite steady average CEO succession rates, dismissals hit a 10-year high in 2012.

In 2012, 53 CEOs in the S&P 500 left their post. The rate of CEO succession in calendar year 2012 was 10.9 percent, consistent with the average number of annual succession announcements from 2000 through 2011. The rate of CEO dismissals varies widely across the 2000–2012 period, ranging from 40.0 percent in 2002 to 13.2 percent in 2005 (on average, 24.5 percent for the period). In 2012, 31.4 percent of all successions were non-voluntary departures, the highest rate recorded since 2003.

Companies in the services industries experienced higher than average CEO succession rates.

The rate of CEO succession had significant variation across industry groups during 2012. The services industry had a succession rate of 18.0 percent in 2012, higher than its 13-year average of 16.2 percent. By contrast, the extraction industry, which includes mining, petroleum products, and natural gas companies, had a succession rate of only 5.6 percent during 2012, lower than its 13-year average of 9.5 percent.

English: Corporate Governance
English: Corporate Governance (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Companies increasingly look outside to hire their CEOs.

In 2012, 27.1 percent of S&P 500 companies that faced a CEO succession hired an outsider for the top job. While the rate confirms a trend recorded since the 1970s, it is much higher than the 19 percent reported in 2011. This finding may suggest that there is a need to continue to strengthen companies’ leadership development practices. The heated pay-for-performance debate of the last few years has induced boards of directors to increase the rigor of the CEO selection process: the growing percentage of outsiders chosen as new CEOs may show that directors don’t always like what they find within the companies’ ranks. Moreover, a number of companies that underwent a succession event in 2012 selected a director from their own board as the new CEOs. The director-turned-CEO succession model provides companies with a chief executive who is familiar with corporate strategy and key stakeholders, thereby reducing leadership transition risk.

CEO departure may offer opportunity to reconsider board leadership model.

Only 18.8 percent of successions in 2012 involved the immediate joint appointment of an individual as CEO and chairman of the board of directors. Based on succession announcements, one-third of departing CEOs remained as board chairman for at least a brief transition period, typically until the next shareholder meeting, while several departing CEOs retained significant influence with the company as board chairman. In some cases (Iron Mountain), the succession was used as an opportunity to reconsider the board leadership structure and adopt a CEO/board chairman separation model. Alternatively, the boards of Altria Group, Boston Scientific, CA Inc., and Murphy Oil retained the expertise of the departing CEO via a consulting contract rather than a position on the board.

Formal succession process is credited for the choice of new CEO, except when the CEO is hired from outside.

Perhaps surprisingly, only 22.9 percent of succession announcements among S&P 500 companies in 2012 explicitly stated that the incoming CEO was identified through the board’s succession planning process. This is noticeably lower than the 32.4 percent of successions that referred to the succession planning process in 2011. There appears to be a link between inside promotion to the CEO position and the succession planning process—31.6 percent of announcements that mention the board’s role in the succession planning process involve an insider appointment as incoming CEO, whereas no successions that involve an outside hire reference succession planning.

Mantatory CEO retirement policies remain seldom used.

Mandatory CEO retirement policies based on age are an infrequent element of CEO succession plans. Only 11.8 percent of manufacturing companies and 8 percent of nonfinancial services companies adopt an age-based mandatory retirement policy for CEOs; the number is lower in the financial industry. The highest level of policy adoption (19.4 percent) is reported by manufacturing and nonfinancial companies with annual revenue of $20 billion or greater.

Le développement de la relève pour des postes de haute direction

Le rôle du C.A. et du PCD (CEO) dans la planification de la succession du premier dirigeant

Mieux planifier la relève du PCD (CEO)  |  Une approche systématique pour en garantir le succès ?

La planification de la relève : Une activité primordiale pour tous les C.A.

Planification de la relève du PCD et gestion des talents

More Companies Looking Outside for their Next CEO (sys-con.com)

The 2012 Chief Executive Study: Time for New CEOs – Just Released (barebrilliance.wordpress.com)

Wal-Mart CEO Succession and Replacement Plan Identified (247wallst.com)

Succession Planning (lawprofessors.typepad.com)

Comment préserver le fragile équilibre entre les principaux acteurs de la gouvernance ?


Aujourd’hui, j’ai choisi de partager avec les lecteurs un article de Holly J. Gregory, associé de Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, paru sur le blogue de Harvard Law School Forum (HLSF) on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation. Ce billet présente un solide argumentaire en faveur de la préservation d’un juste équilibre entre les principaux acteurs de la gouvernance  : les actionnaires, les administrateurs, les managers, les conseillers et les autorités règlementaires.

Il est clair que le conseil d’administration, élu par les actionnaires, a toujours la responsabilité de l’orientation, de la surveillance et du suivi de l’organisation. Mais l’environnement de la gouvernance a changé et les actionnaires peuvent maintenant se référer aux avis exprimés par les firmes spécialisées de conseils en procuration pour mieux faire entendre leurs voix.

L’auteur tente de clarifier les rôles de tous les acteurs en insistant sur les équilibres fragiles à préserver dans la gouvernance des sociétés. Que pensez-vous de la montée de l’influence des actionnaires activistes ?

Preserving Balance in Corporate Governance

In our annual missive last year, we wrote about the need to restore trust in our system of corporate governance generally and in relations between boards of directors and shareholders specifically. We continue to be troubled by the tensions that have developed over roles and responsibilities in the corporate governance framework for public companies. The board’s fundamental mandate under state law – to “manage and direct” the operations of the company – is under pressure, facilitated by federal regulation that gives shareholders advisory votes on subjects where they do not have decision rights either under corporate law or charter. Some tensions between boards and shareholders are inherent in our governance system and are healthy. While we are concerned about further escalation, we do not view the current relationship between boards and shareholders as akin to a battle, let alone a revolution, as some media rhetoric about a “shareholder spring” might suggest. However, we do believe that boards and shareholders should work to smooth away excesses on both sides to ensure a framework in which decisions can be made in the best interests of the company and its varied body of shareholders.

English: The former Gales Brewery Betrayed by ...
English: The former Gales Brewery Betrayed by shareholders who wanted the cash rather than a successful business. Sold to Fullers 2005, closed by Fullers 2006 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The board is charged with managing and directing the affairs of the corporation. State law does not dictate with specificity how the board should carry out this mandate, but rather imposes fiduciary duties on individual directors. This allows a degree of board self-determination within the flexible fiduciary framework of prudence, good faith and loyalty. However, while board and director responsibilities have not changed in any fundamental way, from a compliance, disclosure and risk management perspective, more is expected from the boards of public companies than ever before. Boards need to meet the expanding expectations of regulators, shareholders, and the public while maintaining focus on key board responsibilities. The corporate form enables shareholders to share in the benefits of corporate activity while limiting their potential liability to their investment. Their decision rights may be limited, but their voice and their influence is not. Of course, with power comes responsibility. If shareholders do not have the resources to become informed about a particular company and the issues that it faces, or if there are no performance issues or other red flags that would warrant special attention, it makes sense for shareholders to generally defer to the board’s recommendations made in the fiduciary decision-making framework the law promotes. This essential construct of corporate law should be respected as it has served all of us well. Shareholder powers should be exercised to strengthen this construct, not create a playground for special interests.

Preserving the delicate balance between board and shareholder responsibilities is vital to enable companies to maintain focus and efficiently create sustainable long-term value for shareholders, particularly in times of difficult economic conditions.

Les actionnaires doivent-ils être consultés sur les rémunérations des hauts dirigeants ? (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

A Call on U.S. Independent Directors to Develop Shareholder Engagement Strategies (blogs.law.harvard.edu)

Director Primacy at the Lowell Milken Institute (professorbainbridge.com)

Barry Rosenstein Attacks Canadian Corporate Governance [VIDEO] (valuewalk.com)

What Is a Corporation? (infotaxsquare.wordpress.com)

Debating « The Shareholder Value Myth » (concurringopinions.com)