Catégorie : Matière à cas

Votre entreprise est-elle préparée à prendre en compte les risques environnementaux et sociaux ? Et votre C.A. ?


Les actionnaires exercent de plus en plus de pressions sur les C.A. afin que ceux-ci prennent en compte les risques environnementaux et sociaux. Voici un article publié par E&Y qui fait un excellent résumé de la situation. À lire.

 

Aujourd’hui, c’est le premier anniversaire du blogue Gouvernance   |  Jacques Grisé et ce billet est le 365e de l’année, ce qui représente une moyenne d’une publication par jour. Je me propose de tenir le rythme pour les prochaines années.

 

Faites de mon blogue votre source d’information indispensable sur les activités et les actualités en gouvernance de sociétés. Merci.

 

English: Risk Management road sign
English: Risk Management road sign (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

« Shareholders are asking boards to mitigate risks tied to evolving regulations, shifting global weather patterns and heightened public awareness of climate change issues. Summary: Proposals from shareholders reveal that investors find their company’s social and environmental policies correlated with its risk management strategy — and ultimately its financial performance. We estimate that half of all shareholder resolutions in 2011 will center on social and environmental issues. »

 

 

In 2011, shareholder proposals are expected to focus on the following issues:

 

  1. Social/environmental. Expected to make up the largest portion of proposals this year, these proposals will focus on political contributions and lobbying, human rights and labor practices, sustainability and greenhouse gases, environmental risk and toxic chemicals.
  2. Board-focused matters. Expected to represent the second-largest category of proposals, these initiatives will center on board composition, independent leadership, majority voting to elect directors and board declassification.
  3. Strategic and antitakeover-related-issues. Typically these proposals seek to eliminate supermajority vote requirements, and to allow shareholders to call special meetings or act by written consent.
  4. Executive compensation. As this is the first year for mandatory say-on-pay provisions giving shareholders the right to vote on executive pay, fewer proposals will relate to compensation arrangements.

À quoi servent les actionnaires de nos jours ?


Excellent article de Justin Fox et Jay W. Lorsch dans le dernier numéro (juillet-août) de Harvard Business Review. On y décrit les rôles que devraient jouer les actionnaires de nos jours et on présente plusieurs suggestions pour les aider à mieux contribuer au succès des organisations. Un must !
 
What Good Are Shareholders? – Harvard Business Review 

Walmart Shareholders' Meeting 2011
Walmart Shareholders’ Meeting 2011 (Photo credit: Walmart Stores)
« The path forward for corporate executives and shareholders appears blocked. Executives complain, with justification, that meddling and second-guessing from shareholders are making it ever harder for them to do their jobs effectively. Shareholders complain, with justification, of executives who pocket staggering paychecks while delivering mediocre results. Boards are stuck in the middle—under increasing pressure to act as watchdogs and disciplinarians despite evidence that they’re more effective as friendly advisers…
 

Our aim here is to focus on shareholders. Who are they? What are their incentives? What are they good at? What are they bad at? The body of research and discussion on these questions is growing. (For a summary, see “Are Institutional Investors Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?,” a working paper by Ben W. Heineman Jr. and Stephen Davis, published by Yale’s Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance.) Our contribution is to offer a framework for thinking about shareholders’ role and to make some suggestions for changes. We’ve divided shareholders’ contributions into three areas: money, information, and discipline ».

The Director’s Dilemma – Juillet 2012


Voici un cas présenté par Julie Garland McLelland www.mclellan.com.au. À chaque mois Julie présente un cas qui est analysé par trois experts. Vous pouvez vous abonner à la série Director’s Dilemma.

Welcome to the July 2012 edition of The Director’s Dilemma.

This newsletter provides case studies that have been written to help you to develop your judgement as a company director. The case studies are based upon real life; they focus on complex and challenging boardroom issues which can be resolved in a variety of ways. There is often no one ‘correct’ answer; just an answer that is more likely to work given the circumstances and personalities of the case.

These are real life cases; the names and some circumstances have been altered to ensure anonymity. Each potential solution to the case study has different pros and cons for the individuals and companies concerned. Every month this newsletter presents an issue and several responses.

Consider: Which response would you choose and why?

Miriam is the Regional Managing Director for a large multi-national company. She oversees a group of companies that manufacture and sell products across the region and also export from it. One of the subsidiaries in her group is in a country that has a small market for the products and is fundamentally unprofitable. She has recommended on several occasions that the board allow her to close this subsidiary and supply that market by importing product from other group companies. She has backed her recommendations with detailed market analyses and projections as well as implementation plans.

Each time the board has denied her request and she is forced to continue to see the subsidiary drain her region’s profits and the shareholders’ returns. Last time the board met in her region she made the usual request and was denied again. She lost her temper and said some fairly harsh words in an unprofessional tone.

Miriam is a professional manager and has produced good results so her transgression was forgiven. However the board is, once again, meeting in her region and she has another invitation to present her recommended strategy to them.

What should Miriam do?

Eli’s Answer

Before addressing the board again, Miriam needs to find out why its members have so far refused to close the subsidiary. There may be a surface agenda as well as a hidden agenda, and she needs to uncover both. Once she finds out what the real concerns are, she needs to factor them into any proposed solution, which may be something other than her first choice.

When proposing the eventual solution, Miriam should first acknowledge respectfully the concerns about the proposed closing, and then explain the challenge she has in balancing these concerns with the need to be fiscally viable. The fact that she acknowledges the board’s concerns with utmost respect will likely make it easier for the board to listen to her proposed solution. Again, the proposed solution would probably not be an outright shutdown, but one that would somehow optimize the positive outcomes and minimize the risks.

Of course, there is a possibility that Miriam will discover that the board’s resistance to a shutdown is not legitimate but is emotionally or personally-based (e.g., the board Chair is the one who orchestrated the start-up of this subsidiary and takes personal offence to any suggestion of a shut down). If this is the case, Miriam may consider whether she can tolerate working in this setting. If her professionalism is substantially compromised, she should consider resigning.

One other issue to consider is whether the board should even be involved in decisions to start-up or wind-down a subsidiary, or whether such decisions should be delegated to the CEO who would make them on strictly professional considerations. However, such a change would require a revision of board policy to delegate more authority to management and remain focused primarily on strategic priorities, fiduciary duties, and organizational policies.

Eli Mina is a consultant on board effectiveness, shared decision making, and meeting procedures. He is the author of « 101 Boardroom Problems and How to Solve Them » and is based in Vancouver, Canada.

Julie’s Answer

Miriam must set the correct strategic context for a board discussion. She should investigate and understand the reasons the subsidiary was established and the assumptions presented to the board when they approved establishment. She should ask:

  1. Were the assumptions wrong?
  2. Were the assumptions right but the world has now changed?
  3. Have the reasons for setting up in such a small market ceased to exist?
  4. Can the aims of the subsidiary be addressed by another strategy?

Loss of temper (or any emotional control) is not acceptable behaviour for a senior executive. Miriam is lucky to have a second chance. She must make the most of this by establishing a strong shared understanding of strategy for the subsidiary. She needs to present the facts and align herself with the board by building agreement about what the subsidiary was set up to accomplish before she asks the board to endorse a change of strategy.

She then needs to demonstrate that the board can rely on her leadership to implement the strategy she is recommending. This is not just a question of financial logic and brief implementation plans; she must address risks including legal issues around staff redundancies and closure of facilities. The board needs to satisfy itself that the strategy recommended will be satisfactorily implemented under her leadership.

Board time is precious and Miriam should write a good board paper so that all directors are able to engage in a productive discussion and confidently make a decision.

If the board is still unwilling to close the subsidiary she will just have to carry on running it. By engaging in a proper high level discussion Miriam should gain an insight into the reasons for retaining a loss-making subsidiary. She may even find that she agrees with the directors.

Miriam needs to relax. It is the board’s decision, not hers. She has done her duty by providing the information required to facilitating a proper debate and decision.

Julie Garland McLellan is a practising non-executive director and board consultant based in Sydney, Australia.

Michelle’s Answer

Miriam is forgetting that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results! If the board is saying ‘no’ – then it’s ‘no’! The good news for Miriam is that ‘no’ is just feedback that she didn’t properly understand her audience’s attitude. Miriam simply hasn’t reflected to the board that she understands their perspective before seeking approval. ‘No’ means try again, just do something different!

To date Miriam has presented her logic, data and analysis and only covered what she wanted to say, and it’s not working. Miriam should remember, ‘it’s not about me, it’s all about the audience’. I suggest Miriam think about the issues from the board member’s (not her own) perspective. She should ask herself, ‘what is this audience thinking, feeling and doing in relation to this issue?’ She could phone each board member prior to the board meeting and elicit their concerns. She could seek feedback from her direct reports as they are possibly more connected to the issues at the coal face. I expect Miriam would find that her previous approach was misdirected. Instead of focusing on profitability (her main concern) there’s probably a different matter getting in the way of their approval, such as a prior commitment to the staff in the unprofitable subsidiary or to the wider financial market regarding the closure of the subsidiary.

We are more likely to be influenced by our emotions first and then substantiate our views with logic and data. It’s important that Miriam dedicates some time in the opening of her upcoming board presentation to re-establish rapport with her board. Only then is she in a position to deliver the relevant facts and data based on her assessment of their perspective.

This matter is important, so I encourage her to allocate the time important matters deserve. Miriam must plan her approach and rehearse until she is confident. A professional presentation skills coach can help dramatically with the necessary preparation for this type of business presentation.

Michelle Bowden, CSP is a Master of Influence and presentations coach. She is the author of « Don’t Picture me Naked » – how to present your ideas and influence people using techniques that actually work. She is based in Sydney, Australia.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed above are general in nature and are designed to help you to develop your judgement as a director. They are not a definitive legal ruling. Names and some circumstances in the case study have been changed to ensure anonymity. Contributors to this newsletter comment in the context of their own jurisdiction; readers should check their local laws and regulations as they may be very different.

This newsletter – If you have any ideas for improving the newsletter please let me know. If you are reading a forwarded copy please visit my website and sign up for your own subscription.

www.mclellan.com.au | PO Box 97 Killara NSW 2071 email julie@mclellan.com.au | phone +61 2 9499 8700 | mobile +61 411 262 470 | fax +61 2 9499 8711

Le C.A. et l’utilisation des médias sociaux


Excellent document de Santiago Chaher et James David Spellman paru dans Global Corporate Governance Forum Publication. La publication présente plusieurs facteurs qui devraient inciter les conseils d’administration à se préoccuper sérieusement des médias sociaux. À lire. 

Corporate Governance and Social Media

« What should board members know about social media as it relates to a company’s ability to do business and safeguard its image? And what is the board’s role in helping a company make the best use of social media—and defending against its misuse? Two corporate governance practitioners provide insights on the power of new social technologies to shape boards’ decisions and bolster stakeholders’ influence ».
 
Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...
Image via CrunchBase

« In short, today’s corporate directors have the ‘necessary’ skills in terms of compliance and financial performance, but not the ‘sufficient’ skills in terms of strategic or technological know how, » says Barry Libert, chief executive officer of OpenMatters, a consultancy for boards. « Why? Because for years, astute corporate directors believed the tools that companies like Facebook and Twitter offered weren’t essential. In their view, these new means of communications were for kids, had little, if any, business value, and created minimal strategic, operational or financial risks. Wow, were they wrong. »

This circumstance will change as business and personal needs require more extensive use of social media.For a 2011 Deloitte questionnaire, 79 percent of all public company respondents reported that their board’s use of technology is increasing.

Amélioration de la qualité de l’audit : un point de vue canadien


Voici un document de Deloitte sur le thème de l’amélioration de la qualité de l’audit : un point de vue canadien.  Le document fait le point sur les travaux à réaliser afin d’assurer une certaine universalité des façons de faire en matière d’audit.

Amélioration de la qualité de l’audit : un point de vue canadien

« Sous le thème «Amélioration de la qualité de l’audit : un point de vue canadien», un processus de consultation est mené par le Conseil canadien sur la reddition de comptes (CCRC) et l’Institut Canadien des Comptables Agréés (ICCA) en vue de recueillir les points de vue des parties prenantes sur les principales questions qui se posent en matière d’amélioration de la qualité de l’audit à l’échelle mondiale, et sur l’incidence de ces questions au Canada.

Les principales initiatives comprennent notamment :

Le Canada ne pourra pas se soustraire aux changements en matière d’audit qui seront proposés dans d’autres pays. En outre, les éléments clés du système d’information financière canadien, par exemple la réglementation sur les valeurs mobilières, les normes de comptabilité, d’audit et de déontologie, la surveillance des audits et les meilleures pratiques en matière de gouvernance d’entreprise, sont liés à ceux des autres systèmes financiers dans le monde. Que nous le voulions ou non, les modifications apportées au processus d’audit par nos principaux partenaires commerciaux affecteront probablement les audits de toutes les entités canadiennes, cotées ou non, à but lucratif ou non, des secteurs public ou privé. Les investisseurs canadiens seront donc touchés, tout comme la santé et le bon fonctionnement des marchés financiers canadiens ».

Le futur des émissions d’action à votes mulltiples : le cas de Facebook


Excellent papier sur les raisons qui militent en faveur de l’émission d’actions à votes multiples. Le contexte semble propice à ces initiatives. Qu’en sera-t-il dans le futur ?

« Dual-class share structures used to be rare and confined largely to family-run  enterprises or media companies, such as the New York Times, where they could be  justified as protecting the company’s public mission. The received wisdom was  that active investors are good for companies and for the market as a whole, and  that companies need to put shareholders first. But Google bucked convention  when, in 2004, it adopted the dual-class structure for its I.P.O., and the  arrangement has become popular among technology companies. All the big tech  I.P.O.s of the past year—LinkedIn, Groupon, Yelp, Zynga—featured it, and  Google’s recent stock split took things to a new level and sold shares with no  voting rights at all. Whereas the C.E.O.s of most public companies have to spend  time kowtowing to investors, Zuckerberg and his peers are insisting on the right  to say, “Thanks for your money. Now shut up.”

Leçons de gouvernance à tirer de la saga Canadian Pacific


Excellent article de Richard Leblanc dans Canadian Business.

Il y a en beaucoup de leçons de gouvernance à tirer de la saga CP ; chaque conseil d’administration au Canada devrait prendre note des points soulevés par Richard Leblanc.

CanadianBusiness.com

« Shareholder accountability, strategic engagement and director experience are either non-existent or short-changed in the Canadian corporate governance landscape ».

À lire … absolument !

Comment récompenser les dirigeants pour les résultats obtenus dans le domaine de la RSE ?


Voici un article très pertinent, sur un sujet d’actualité, récemment publié dans theconversation.edu.au et partagé via Richard Leblanc. Les organisations font de plus en plus état des actions entreprises dans le domaine de la RSE et du développement durable et elles mettent en place des mécanismes de suivi qui tient compte de toutes les parties prenantes et qui se matérialisent à plus long terme. Il s’agit d’un domaine de recherche relativement récent, notamment l’étude portant sur les pratiques visant à compenser les résultats de la direction en cette matière.

Beyond the bottom line: how to reward executives for sustainable practice

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, quelques extraits de résultats de recherche dans ce domaine :

« Are sustainability-dependent executive bonuses the answer to saving the planet ?  Research recently conducted by the Centre for Corporate Governance at the University of Technology, Sydney, examined whether a sample of Australia’s leading corporations are rewarding their executives for achieving sustainability targets as well as financial targets.

The question of how sustainability might be linked to executive remuneration was part of a broader study of how companies are integrating sustainability objectives into their core business strategies.

Most large companies in Australia have developed sustainability strategies over recent years, but in a rather piecemeal fashion in response to specific external demands – reducing greenhouse gases, implementing family-friendly policies and so forth.  They are now looking to find ways of measuring, monitoring and integrating these programs into their overall business planning.

The research report, entitled Steering Sustainability, was commissioned by think tank Catalyst Australia as part of its Full Disclosure campaign.  The campaign’s objective was to explore the growing influence of corporations in society and assist communities in articulating what standards and behaviour they expect of companies.

Once strategies are decided upon, lines of responsibility and accountability must be clearly defined such that progress is monitored, measured and fed back into strategy development and reward schemes.  Rewarding executives for sustainability performance could be the answer to ensuring companies do what they promise. As the old saying goes, companies need to “put their money where their mouth is” – in more ways than one ».

Documentation de l’ICCA en gouvernance des sociétés publiques, privées et OBNL


L’Institut canadien des comptables agréés (ICCA) a produit des documents pratiques, pertinents, synthétiques et accessibles sur presque tous les sujets reliés à la gouvernance. En fait, l’ICCA a été un pionnier dans l’élaboration de publications répondant aux questions fondamentales que se posent les administrateurs sur l’ensemble des thèmes se rapportant à la gouvernance.

Toute formation en gouvernance des sociétés réfère à cette documentation de base. Ainsi, le Collège des administrateurs des sociétés (CAS) et son partenaire canadien, le Directors College (DC), puisent abondamment dans les ressources documentaires de l’ICCA dont tous les grands cabinets sont membres. Ceux-ci sont également de précieux collaborateurs des programmes de formation au Canada. Ces documents sont révisés régulièrement afin qu’ils demeurent actuels et pertinents.

Participez au sondage !

 

boutiqueCA

Documentation en gouvernance de l’ICCA : collection de 20 questions

Vous trouverez ci-dessous une mise à jour de la collection de « 20 questions » à l’intention des administrateurs de sociétés. Si vous avez des questions dans le domaine de la gouvernance, vous y trouverez certainement des réponses satisfaisantes. Je vous encourage donc fortement à consulter ces publications. Vous pouvez les commander ou les télécharger.

Documentation en gouvernance de l’ICCA : collection de 20 questions

Cas en gouvernance de PME


Chaque semaine La Presse nous propose l’extrait d’un cas en gestion. Cette semaine, Mircea Gabriel Chirita, Claude Chapdelaine et Louis Jacques Filion, de HEC Montréal nous présente un cas très intéressant sur la gouvernance dans le contexte d’une PME.

Voici les questions posées:

Y a-t-il des inconvénients à mettre en place un comité consultatif ?
À partir de quand la mise en place d’un CC est-elle souhaitable pour une PME ?
Quelles sont les difficultés et les défis de la gestion d’un CC ?
Lien de l’article de la Presse : Cas en gouvernance de PME

Un regard sur la responsabilité sociétale … de quelle Gouvernance a-t-on besoin ?


Voici une référence à un site français qui traite de l’intégration de la RSE à la gouvernance des sociétés. Son auteur, Marc Unfried, propose un travail d’accompagnement des entreprises dans le processus d’implantation d’une Gouvernance Sociétale ou Gouvernance des Parties Prenantes. Le blogue est tout à fait remarquable et je vous encourage à le visiter.

 

Participez au sondage !

« La Gouvernance des organisations est déjà très largement encadrée et a fait l’objet de nombreuses études, mais qu’en est-il de la Gouvernance Sociétale ? Son intégration dans l’ISO26000 comme « une question centrale », au même titre que les droits de l’homme ou la contribution au  développement local, a souvent été jugée comme accessoire, sur la base que la Gouvernance était une affaire de Conseil d’administration en charge des intérêts des actionnaires.

Pourtant dès 2009,  l’IFAC (International Federation of Accountants) dans son guide des bonnes pratiques en matière de gouvernance et « sustainability framework » en reprécise les principes :
  1. Créer et optimiser la « sustainability stakeholder value ».
  2. Équilibrer les intérêts des parties prenantes.
  3. Appréhender la performance et la conformité.
  4. Intégrer la gouvernance dans l’ensemble de l’organisation.
  5. Gérer de façon effective et efficiente  les risques.

La Gouvernance Sociétale est donc bien plus qu’un simple exercice de conformité, mais reste une notion à préciser. C’est le rôle critique d’une Direction et un devoir de vigilance pour une intégration réussie de la Responsabilité Sociétale.

Responsabilité Sociétale, … de quelle Gouvernance a-t-on besoin ?

Des procès-verbaux très questionnables : Un cas de conscience !


Voici un cas présenté par Julie Garland McLellan dans le cadre de sa chronique Director’s Dilemma publié sur son site. Ce cas porte sur une situation de procès-verbaux problématiques ! Qu’en pensez-vous ?

« Lenny recently joined the board of a government business enterprise. The government has been improving its board member selection processes and, this year, had a specific requirement that each board should have at least one director with a formal governance qualification. Having gained such a qualification Lenny was delighted that he was appointed to a large and politically sensitive board where all the other directors are far older and more experienced than he. He is concerned about the quality of the board minutes. They read like a transcript with verbatim remarks attributed to individuals. Some of the statements concern Ministerial or Departmental staff; they are quite possibly defamatory and of questionable relevance to the business. Lenny has raised the issue with the Chairman but been told that this is how minutes are done ‘in practice’ and that theoretical ideas won’t be trialled in his boardroom. The other board members don’t seem concerned but get restless when, at each meeting, Lenny goes through the minutes and requests numerous changes. The latest set of minutes is even more worrisome; it states that the board noted and reviewed several new policy statements that were not on the agenda and that Lenny has no copy of or recollection of discussing. He called the board secretary who informed him that this will save him and his board colleagues a lot of unnecessary reading and boring discussion of things they can’t do anything about. The secretary believes management have compliance well in hand so there is no need to worry.

What should Lenny do? »

Director’s Dilemma

If you would like to publish your advice on this topic in a global company directors’ newsletter please respond to the dilemma above with approximately 250 words of advice for Lenny. Back issues of the newsletter are available at http://www.mclellan.com.au/newsletter.html (see link below) where you can check out the format and quality.

L’importance pour le Board de bien comprendre les implications des médias sociaux


Excellent article écrit par Holly J. Gregory, partner Weil, Gotshal & Mages, dans Practicallaw.com

SOCIAL MEDIA : What Boards Need to Know

Voici un extrait des pricipaux points saillants. Vous devez lire cet article pour avoir plusieurs bonnes suggestions concernant cette problématiques.

Importance for boards to understand the implications of social media

« Boards need to be proactive in learning about social media from a strategic and risk management perspective, so that they can provide effective guidance and risk oversight. They should understand the company’s social media policies and internal controls, as well as the processes that management uses to monitor and manage social media risks. Boards should also understand the value of social media as a source of information, and should determine with management how best to mine and aggregate that information.

The following sets outs steps the board should take, including important questions the board should ask, to understand and effectively oversee the company’s use of, and policies on, social media:

Discuss corporate strategy

The board should periodically discuss with management its strategic approach to social media. Questions the board should ask include:zzHow does social media relate to corporate strategy?

Ensure adequate risk management

The board (or an appropriate committee) should also periodically discuss with management the risks associated with social media and ensure that the company is adequately managing those risks. Issues the board should focus on include:zzHow does the company monitor and mine social media from a risk perspective?

Identify relevant personnel

The board should know who in the company is responsible for social media efforts. The board should ask:zzHow is responsibility for social media organized in the company?

Review social media policies and internal controls.

The board (or an appropriate committee) should review company policies and internal controls related to social media from time to time. The board should make sure that the company has strict, straightforward and well-understood policies about who communicates for the company and in what circumstances. These policies should specifically address social media. Any company information that is posted online should first be approved by people who are knowledgeable about disclosure requirements under federal securities laws (such as Regulation FD, proxy solicitation rules, antifraud laws and prospectus requirements), advertising laws and other applicable laws. Key questions the board should consider include:What are the company’s social media policies?

Evaluate shareholder relations programs.

The board should review shareholder relations and communications programs to evaluate whether the company is well-positioned to elicit information from key shareholders. The company should be able to determine what key shareholders care about so that the board and management can respond to legitimate concerns. In addition to trolling social media websites for information, the company should engage in regular outreach with significant shareholders. This can be done through the use of online surveys, shareholder hotlines, dedicated communication websites and targeted meetings with specific shareholders or groups of shareholders.

Assess investor communications policy.

The board should verify that the company’s investor communications policy is up-to-date and well-understood by directors, senior management and investor relations personnel. Boards should ask:zzAre messages coordinated?

Emphasize employee compliance.

The board’s attention to a culture of compliance at the company, beginning with the « tone at the top, » emphasizes the need for employees to act with integrity. The board should make sure that there are protected channels for employees to voice concerns. This will help discourage employees from making negative comments about the company through social media. Also, the board should recognize that rogue employees who act out online are often symptomatic of a broader morale problem within the company.

Confirm auditor review.

The board’s audit committee should ask the company’s internal audit department whether auditors are reviewing compliance with social media and communications policies.

Stay up-to-date.

Directors should follow relevant blogs and other social media related to the company, but with a strict understanding that they should « listen » only (just as they are advised not to engage with shareholders directly unless asked to do so on an agreed topic and message). This is not only important to ensure that communications and engagement are coordinated around a clear message, but also to avoid legal problems, such as the selective disclosure of material non-public information. Directors should ask management (including the corporate secretary and the corporate communications professionals) what they read and follow to stay up-to-date on influential views about the company and key governance issues ».

Documentation en gouvernance de l’ICCA : collection de 20 questions


L’Institut canadien des comptables agréés (ICCA) a produit des documents pratiques, pertinents, synthétiques et accessibles sur presque tous les sujets reliés à la gouvernance. En fait, l’ICCA a été un pionnier dans l’élaboration de publications répondant aux questions fondamentales que se posent les administrateurs sur l’ensemble des thèmes se rapportant à la gouvernance.

Toute formation en gouvernance des sociétés réfère à cette documentation de base. Ainsi, le Collège des administrateurs des sociétés (CAS) et son partenaire canadien, le Directors College (DC), puisent abondamment dans les ressources documentaires de l’ICCA dont tous les grands cabinets sont membres. Ceux-ci sont également de précieux collaborateurs des programmes de formation au Canada. Ces documents sont révisés régulièrement afin qu’ils demeurent actuels et pertinents.

boutiqueCA

Vous trouverez ci-dessous une mise à jour de la collection de « 20 questions » à l’intention des administrateurs de sociétés. Si vous avez des questions dans le domaine de la gouvernance, vous y trouverez certainement des réponses satisfaisantes. Je vous encourage donc fortement à consulter ces publications. Vous pouvez les commander ou les télécharger.

Documentation en gouvernance de l’ICCA : collection de 20 questions

 

2012 : L’année de la rémunération en fonction de la performance (P4P)


Voici un document du Conference Board publié dans LinkedIn par Richard Leblanc récemment. Super intéressant; à lire.

The year of Pay for Performance – Proxy season 2012

Création d’un comité de l’Institut français des administrateurs (IFA) sur la rémunération des dirigeants


Communiqué de l’IFA

« Afin d’approfondir et d’actualiser sa réflexion sur le sujet, l’Institut Français des Administrateurs (IFA), fort de son expérience en matière de gouvernance a décidé de créer un club des présidents de comités de rémunération qui ambitionne d’être un lieu d’échanges, d’identification des bonnes pratiques et une force de proposition en matière de rémunération des dirigeants ».

IFA Institut Français des Administrateurs

Le groupe de travail, qui s’est réuni pour la première fois le 10 février dernier, a d’ores et déjà  retenu quelques principes d’action :

Il est parfaitement légitime que l’assemblée générale débatte de la rémunération des dirigeants et qu’elle fasse remonter ses appréciations et réactions  – positives comme négatives – mais la décision finale en la matière incombe au conseil d’administration. Il serait tout à fait contreproductif de déresponsabiliser le conseil ;

L’intervention des présidents de comités de rémunérations dans les AG  peut être utile afin d’expliquer aux actionnaires la logique des décisions prises ;  Tous les outils de rémunérations (bonus court et moyen terme, stock-options,  actions de performance…) doivent rester disponibles. Il appartient aux comités de rémunérations de  proposer  au conseil d’administration de retenir les plus adaptés en fonction des spécificités de l’entreprise ;

L’Etat a la responsabilité de déterminer la fiscalité des différents types de rémunérations  mais il doit être attentif à ne pas décourager les rémunérations différées et l’intéressement à long terme ;

L’introduction du « say on pay » dans la pratique des sociétés françaises ne nécessite pas  le vote d’une loi mais peut être intégré dans le code de gouvernance.

Dix propositions cruciales pour renforcer la gouvernance


Voici un excellent résumé de 10 recommandations du Groupe des 30 qui visent à améliorer la gouvernance des sociétés à l’échelle mondiale. L’article a été publié dans le Financial News du 15 avril 2012 et partagé par Richard Leblanc dans son groupe Boards & Advisors. À lire absolument.

A report by the Group of 30 economic think tank has again turned the spotlight on corporate governance at financial institutions since the financial crisis. Financial News looks at 10 ways in which the industry needs to improve oversight at board level.

Emphasising the link between strong corporate governance and the economic stability both of individual firms and the wider global economy, the Group of 30, a non-profit body which researches international economic issues, laid out key measures that financial institutions should consider when crafting corporate governance policies.

The G30’s members include a mix of international economic leaders, including former President of the European Central Bank Jean-Claude Trichet and economist Paul Volker, former chairman of the US federal reserve. The report, published on Thursday, was put together by a working group that included Jacob Frenkel, chairman of JP Morgan Chase International, Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People’s Bank of China, and William McDonough, former vice-chairman of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. 

Financial News has distilled the 96-page report into 10 factors most important to strong governance at financial institutions.

Le C.A. doit-il se préoccuper de la position de sa société dans les médias sociaux ?


Cet article de David F. Larcker, Sarah M. Larcker, et Brian Tayan a été préparé par le Corporate Governance Research Program pour être utilisé comme base de discussion dans le cadre de la formation à la  Stanford Graduate School of Business. On y décrit les raisons qui incitent les membres de C.A. à recourrir aux médias sociaux pour connaître le positionnement de la société, en conformité avec leurs responsabilités de supervision (oversight) de  l’entreprise. Certains invoquent cependant des motifs qui devraient inciter les membres de C.A. à ne pas accéder à ces informations car les responsabilités du C.A. doivent être séparées de celles du management.

Pour vous former une idée de la position que devrait adopter un membre de C.A. sur le sujet, je vous encourage à lire cet article.

IS IT TIME FOR THE BOARD TO EMBRACE SOCIAL MEDIA?

Voici quelques questions soulevées par l’article :

Social media introduces a new level of detail and complexity to information gathering regarding a company and its stakeholders. Why haven’t more boards of directors made certain that management has a process in place for collecting, analyzing, and responding to this information? Do boards actually know what questions to ask? Can boards distinguish between a good system for monitoring social media and a bad one?

The examples above suggest that social media can provide early warning of risks facing an organization. Should the board formally review this information, or does this represent an encroachment on managerial prerogative? Which social media metrics should be presented to the board and which excluded? Where do the responsibilities of the board end and those of management begin?

One important task of the board is to monitor organizational reputation. How is this currently done? Should overall sentiment derived from social media sources be a primary input in this analysis?

Voir également l’excellent vidéo de Lucy P. Marcus sur son Blogue Reuters.com

Why boards need to adopt social media

La définition d’un « bon » conseil d’administration !


Article très intéressant qui a fait pas mal de vagues dans les médias sociaux.

Reuters

The one definition of a good board

Rather predictably, after the death of Steve Jobs, Apple Inc.’s board of directors has come under fire for being pliant toadies: yes-men and women.

The board is rather unconventional by current standards. Just seven members, many hand-picked by Jobs, and by most accounts, subservient to him and his personal quirks and needs (particularly regarding his health in recent years). The other notable feature has been the optical and functional irrelevance of the chairperson. This was Steve Jobs’s board — full stop.

L’importance de la qualité des explications dans le cadre de l’application des codes de gouvernance européens basés sur le concept du « Comply or explain »


Vous trouverez, ci-joint, un court résumé de la conférence organisée par European Confederation of Directors’ Associations (ECODA) sur l’application du « Comply or explain » dans les pays de l’EU. Ce document  a été rédigé par Béatrice RICHEZ-BAUM beatrice.richez-baum@ecoda.org, secrétaire générale de ECODA. Voilà donc le sommaire du  point de vue d’un groupe d’expert sur la question.

…. « Bringing together about 90 high profile participants from diverse background and nationality, including EU and national decision-makers, representatives from the business sector, as well as regulators and supervisors, the event provided an informed platform to explore ways to improve the existing model for meaningful and verifiable explanations.

The EU-study by RiskMetrics (supported by ecoDa, BusinessEurope and Landwell) and the European Green Paper on Corporate Governance Framework stressed the need for improving the quality of the explanations and for a better monitoring of these explanations.

All the speakers acknowledged that the “comply or explain” principle has played a useful role in offering an incentive for continuous improvement in Corporate Governance practices and that flexibility is the condition for companies to have the tailored governance they need. However they stressed the need to have a credible system working well in terms of enforcement and being acceptable by society at large.

The speakers clearly call companies to take more responsibility on their governance to prevent regulation that would kill the whole discussion about the quality of explanations and that would reduce the governance debate to a compliance debate with regulators and a box ticking exercise.

If the quality of explanations and the quantity of supervision is improving, all markets’ actors have still a role to play to increase transparency and to enhance not only the content but also the process of good quality explanations »…. Pour plus d ‘information www.ecoda.org