Aujourd’hui, je vous présente les grandes lignes de l’allocution que Mary Jo White, présidente de la US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a exposé devant les membres du Stanford Directors’ College, le 23 juin 2014.
Après avoir brièvement décrit la structure et les fonctions de la SEC, Mme White a choisi d’aborder trois thèmes très importants pour les administrateurs de sociétés :
(1) Le rôle crucial que les administrateurs de sociétés jouent en tant que gardiens des intérêts des actionnaires;
(2) La divulgation des malversations et la coopération avec les investigations de la SEC;
(3) La description du programme de dénonciation (whistleblower) de la SEC, son fonctionnement et ses relations avec le programme de conformité et de contrôle interne de la firme.
Dans ce billet, je présente le point de vue de la SEC eu égard aux rôles fondamentaux que les administrateurs jouent dans la gouvernance des entreprises. Je crois, que comme moi, vous serez intéressé de savoir ce que pense la présidente du plus puissant organisme de surveillance et de régulation des marchés des capitaux au monde. Bonne lecture !
Those of you who are directors play a critically important role in overseeing what your company is doing, and by preventing, detecting, and stopping violations of the federal securities laws at your companies, and responding to any problems that do occur. In other words, you are the essential gatekeepers upon whom your investors and, frankly, the SEC rely. We see you as our partners in the effort to ensure that investors in our capital markets can invest with confidence and, hopefully, success.
At the SEC, we typically use the term “gatekeeper” to refer to auditors, lawyers, and others who have professional obligations to spot and prevent potential misconduct. And while there are certainly other gatekeepers who may be closer to some of the action or more familiar with the details of a transaction or a disclosure document, a company’s directors serve as its most important gatekeepers. For by law, it is ultimately the fiduciary responsibility of the board of directors to oversee the business and affairs of a company.
Seal of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In discharging this important responsibility, it is essential for directors to establish expectations for senior management and the company as a whole, and exercise appropriate oversight to ensure that those expectations are met. It is up to directors, along with senior management under the purview of the board, to set the all-important “tone at the top” for the entire company.
Ensuring the right “tone at the top” for a company is a critical responsibility for each director and the board collectively. Setting the standard in the boardroom that good corporate governance and rigorous compliance are essential goes a long way in engendering a strong corporate culture throughout an organization.
How directors can most effectively instill a strong corporate culture and how challenging it is to do so will vary from company to company. CEOs come with a range of experiences and perspectives. Many, including some here in Silicon Valley, are, at heart, innovators whose day job has come to include being the business leader of a public company. As board members, one of the most important duties you have is to select the right CEO for your company and to ensure that he or she “gets it,” in terms of understanding the importance of tone at the top and a strong corporate culture. Deficient corporate cultures are often the cause of the most egregious securities law violations, and directors, both directly and through the oversight of senior management, play a key role in shaping the prevailing attitude and behaviors within a company.
As a former director and member of an audit committee of a public company, I know the heavy responsibilities you bear and the time-consuming work that is required of you. The best advice I can give for being an effective director is to learn and be engaged. As directors, you must understand your company’s business model and the associated risks, its financial condition, its industry and its competitors. You must pay attention to what senior managers say, but also listen for the things they are not saying. You have to know what is going on in your company’s industry, but also the broader market. You need to know what your company’s competitors are doing and what your shareholders are thinking.
At the risk of hearing a collective groan in response, I would also urge you to consider another outside view that would also be useful to you as a director—the view of your regulators. Listen to what they say publicly is important to them, what is problematic to them. Talk to them. Perhaps visit them. I know of an audit committee chair who visits all of his company’s major regulators once a year, including the international regulators. You may get an earful from time-to-time, but it will be invaluable input for you as a director.
To state the obvious, you must ask the difficult questions, particularly if you see something suspicious or problematic, or, simply, when you do not understand. You should never hesitate to ask more questions, and, always, insist on answers when questions arise. It also goes without saying that you should never ignore red flags. It is your job to be knowledgeable about issues, to be vigilant in protecting against wrongdoing, and to tackle difficult issues head on.
Chair Mary Jo White (Photo credit: Securities and Exchange Commission)
Of course, it is always important for you to know what your shareholders—the owners of your company—are thinking. As most boards today recognize, an open and constructive dialogue with shareholders is not only the right thing to do, but also very helpful in providing perspective on the challenges a company is facing. Many institutional shareholders have unique insights on industry dynamics, competitive challenges and how macroeconomic events are shaping the environment for your company. But it is important not to forget about your other shareholders. There is real value in listening to their views and their voice, as well.
Look thoughtfully at the proposals shareholders are submitting to your company. Ask your management team about them and about the proposals that other companies are receiving that could be relevant to your company. Look at the voting results at shareholder meetings—the percentage of votes for a shareholder– supported resolution or against a management–supported resolution are important, irrespective of whether the resolution is approved, or not.
Ethics and honesty can become core corporate values when directors and senior executives embrace them. This includes establishing strong corporate compliance programs focused on regular training of employees, effective and accessible codes of conduct, and procedures that ensure complaints are thoroughly and fairly investigated. And, it must be obvious to all in your organization that the board and senior management highly value and respect the company’s legal and compliance functions. Creating a robust compliance culture also means rewarding employees who do the right thing and ensuring that no one at the company is considered above the law. Ignoring the misconduct of a high performer or a key executive will not cut it. Compliance simply must be an enterprise-wide effort.
Ci-dessous, l’extrait d’un article très simple sur les devoirs attendus de la part des actionnaires. Si vous avez décidé d’investir dans une entreprise, vous possédez une part de la propriété de celle-ci !
Il est donc important de lire la documentation fournie par le conseil d’administration et par la direction de l’entreprise afin de vous former une opinion sur sa gouvernance, et vous devriez vous faire un devoir d’exercer vos droits de votes.
L’article récemment publié par The Canadian Press saura-t-il éveiller chez vous le sens de la responsabilité de l’actionnaire ? En ce qui me concerne, j’ai décidé, il y a quelques années, de me faire un devoir de lire les documents préparatoires à l’AGA et de voter, par la poste, sur les items de l’ordre du jour qui sollicitent l’assentiment des actionnaires.
Documents sent to shareholders ahead of the meeting can include the management proxy circular, annual information form and the company’s annual report. The information form and annual report give the financial statements and an update by management on the business and the direction for the company — both key documents for shareholders.
The proxy circular includes information related to the annual meeting, including the nominees for the board of directors and the appointment of the auditors. It can also include shareholder proposals or major changes at the company that require shareholder approval.
Eleanor Farrell, director of the Office of the Investor at the Ontario Securities Commission, says shareholders have the right to vote on matters that affect the company, including the election of the board of directors. “That is a very important governance piece for the company,” Farrell says.
“The board is the one that approves the strategic plan. It sets the direction of the company. They appoint the CEO, they evaluate the CEO and they also approve the compensation plan.” Farrell says if shareholders don’t approve of a nominated director they can withhold their vote and, at most large companies, if a majority of the votes cast withhold a vote for a particular director, that director would be forced to step aside.
“Shareholders in the last few years have certainly become and gotten a lot more powerful and a lot more powers, I would say,” Farrell said. “Corporate governance has been a very big concern for institutional investors, certainly, and companies are much more concerned about corporate governance.”
The information circulars also include detailed descriptions about how much the company’s directors receive in compensation and what the senior executives are paid in salary, shares or options, as well as the size of their bonuses and the value of any other perks. The circular will also include how the board arrived at that compensation as well as comparisons with previous years. Certain provisions, such as how much a chief executive will receive if the company is taken over or if they are let go, are also often included.
Vous trouverez ci-dessous un document de réflexion publié par Sean Lyon* et paru dans la série Executive Action du Conference Board. Ce document partagé et commenté par Denis Lefort, CPA, CA, CIA, CRMA, fait référence à cinq (5) lignes de défense interne, soit les opérations, les fonctions de surveillance tactiques comme la gestion des risques et la conformité, les fonctions d’assurance indépendante que sont le comité d’audit, l’audit interne et les autres sous-comités du conseil, et, enfin, la direction et le conseil d’administration.
Quatre lignes de défense externe sont aussi proposées, soit: les auditeurs externes, les actionnaires, les agences de notations et les organismes de réglementation.
Le modèle des 5 lignes de défense est aussi comparé au modèle traditionnel des trois lignes de défense.
Finalement, l’auteur insiste sur l’importance pour l’ensemble des lignes de défense d’agir de façon concertée, voire intégrée, pour assurer le succès global des interventions des uns et des autres pour le bénéfice de l’organisation.
Corporate stakeholder responsibility should take intoaccount various stakeholder groups, including shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, special interest groups,
communities, regulators, politicians, and, ultimately, society. Consequently, a comprehensive corporate oversight framework should be multi-faceted to safeguard the diverse interests and varied expectations of all stakeholders. Increasingly, stakeholders are demanding oversight that safeguards a multitude of their interests, be they financial, economic, social, or environmental. Such an inclusive approach should include an appreciation of the symbiotic relationship that exists between business, society, and nature.
Michael Oxley , U.S. Senator from Maryland. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Organizations should understand the complexity of this interconnectedness to fulfill their social responsibilities. A holistic focus that includes the various lines of defense approach helps provide different stakeholders with the comfort that their interests are safeguarded, if implemented appropriately. A lines-of-defense framework provides stakeholders with a comprehensive system of “checks and balances.”
The existence of such an integrated framework means that stakeholders can reasonably rely on it to ensure that the organization is fulfilling its fiduciary duties, legal obligations, and moral responsibilities, while creating durable value and sustainable economic performance in the process. For this approach to operate effectively, however, each line of defense must play its part both individually and collectively—fulfilling its oversight duties within a holistic framework.
Accordingly, each line of defense collaborates with and challenges the other (complimentary yet antagonistic) lines of defense, as it acts in its own enlightened self-interest. Enhanced cooperation and communication between these lines of defense should be facilitated by better interaction between stakeholders through regular dialogue which is based on mutual understanding of the organization’s objectives. This, however, must be achieved without allowing respective responsibilities or accountabilities to become blurred in the process.
To strengthen corporate defense capabilities, organizations should consider fortifying the second line of defense, which provides the critical link between operational line management and executive management. For many organizations, this is still perhaps the weakest link in the chain. Unfortunately, in many organizations, the defense activities at this layer are operating in a silo; they are not in alignment with other lines, but rather, operate in isolation, with little or no interaction, sharing of information, or collaboration. The activities of an effective second line of defense must be managed in a coordinated and integrated manner.
Each of the other lines of defense requires differing degrees of fortification, but this perhaps has as much to do with best practices rather than any radical makeover. The goal is to reach a more effective balance between the spirit of guidelines based on principle and the interpretation of guidelines that are legal or more prescriptive.
____________________________________
*Sean Lyons is the principal of Risk Intelligence Security Control (R.I.S.C.) International (Ireland) and a recognized corporate defense strategist. He is published internationally and has lectured and spoken at seminars and conferences in both Europe and North America. His contributions have been acknowledged in the Walker Review ofCorporate Governance in UK Banks and Other Financial Institutions, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC)’s Review of the Effectiveness of theCombined Code and the International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN)’s ICGN Corporate Risk Oversight Guidelines. In 2010 Sean was shortlisted as a finalist in the GRC MVP 2009 Awards organized by US based GRC Group (SOX Institute) co-chaired by Senator Paul Sarbanes and Congressman Michael Oxley.
Plusieurs personnes souhaitent occuper un poste sur un conseil d’administration mais ne savent pas comment procéder pour y arriver. Depuis que je suis impliqué dans la formation des administrateurs de sociétés et dans la publication de ce blogue en gouvernance, c’est la question qui m’est le plus souvent posée.
J’ai déjà abordé ce sujet au cours de mes billets antérieurs. Aujourd’hui, je veux à nouveau porter à votre attention trois références très concretes à ce propos.
Le premier article proposé a été publié le 9 janvier 2013 dans Business Insider; il traite de questions que toutes les personnes intéressées à siéger sur un C.A. se posent :
Quelles raisons m’inciteraient à siéger à un conseil d’administration ?
Quelles actions dois-je poser pour obtenir un poste ?
Dois-je viser un poste rémunéré ou un poste sur un conseil d’OBNL ?
L’article ci-dessous tente précisément de répondre à ces questions :
« So here’s a question for you: Do you have a line in your resume stating you’re on a board of directors? Wait, you say. I have no experience, no connections, no way I could possibly do that!The truth is, many professionals don’t think of offering their services to a board until late into their career. But they could’ve reaped the career benefits of being on a board long before that.
2011 Board of Directors Retreat (Photo credit: sfbike)
Don’t expect to be appointed to a public company board seat and receive $200,000 in annual compensation and stock options. When you start your search, you will find many more available positions if you’re willing to work for free. Penelope Trunk offers a series of questions to help you decide if working for free is a good option for you, including :
Who are you going to work with on the board ?
What’s the scope of the projects you will be handling ?
How will you be able to leverage your experience on the board ?
Bottom line: serving on a not-for-profit board can give you a taste of whether you enjoy being a board member. Are you ready to raise your game? Sitting on a board isn’t out of reach for you. You can do this ! »
________________________________________________
Le deuxième article proposé a été publié le 10 janvier 2013 sur le site de 2020 Women onBoards. Il aborde les étapes concrètes à accomplir afin de se dénicher un poste sur un C.A. Vous trouverez, ci-après, le lien vers l’article ainsi qu’une liste des gestes à poser.
Veuillez lire l’article au complet pour mieux comprendre la portée de ces actions.
« One of the things we learned from our National Conversation on Board Diversity on 12/12/12 is that people want more tactical information on how to get on a board of directors. So, just how do you crack the code? Here are a few tips to get you going. Make it part of your New Years’ resolution!
Make your intentions known
Think about industries you know about and identify companies in those industries
Make a short list of directors
Communicate your interest
Be Informed
Network with a search firm
Don’t waste anyone’s time
Be Patient »
___________________________________________
La troisième référence est un très bon article de James Citrin, Senior Director de SpencerStuart,publié sur mon blogue le 17 novembre 2012. C’est certainement un article susceptible d’intéresser plusieurs personnes désirant décrocher un poste sur un conseil d’administration.
Les diplômés et les diplômées des programmes de formation en gouvernance de sociétés, tels que le Collèges des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS), le Directors College (DC) et l’Institute of Corporate Directors(ICD), sont particulièrement invités (es) à lire ce billet d’expert, mais aussi à suivre les discussions sur son Blogue. Voici, ci-dessous, un extrait de l’article :
“You’re a sitting chief executive officer who wants to see how another company’s board governs. Or you’re an aspiring CEO who wants to benefit from a valuable professional development opportunity and expand your marketability. Perhaps you are a newly retired executive who wants to stay active and connected. Or maybe you are a functional leader who wants to contribute your expertise in exchange for gaining a broader strategic perspective. You may even be a CEO or chief HR officer looking for ways to improve your own company’s succession planning by getting your CEO-ready executives boardroom experience. Whether it is one of these or any other number of reasons, many of today’s senior executives would like to join a corporate board of directors. The irony is that while much has been written about the legitimate difficulties of companies finding qualified and interested directors for their boards, there are a growing number of prospective directors who would be all too happy to serve. If you are one of these prospective directors, the question is how position yourself and navigate the nuances of the director selection process to get placed on a board”.
L’auteur propose six étapes à suivre. Lire l’article pour plus de détails.
Voici un document australien de KPMG, très bien conçu, qui répond clairement aux questions que tous les administrateurs de sociétés se posent dans le cours de leurs mandats.
Même si la publication est dédiée à l’auditoire australien de KPMG, je crois que la réalité règlementaire nord-américaine est trop semblable pour se priver d’un bon « kit » d’outils qui peut aider à constituer un Board efficace. C’est un formidable document électronique de 130 pages, donc long à télécharger. Voyez la table des matières ci-dessous.
J’ai demandé à KPMG de me procurer une version française du même document mais il ne semble pas en exister. Bonne lecture en ce début d’été 2014.
Our business environment provides an ever-changing spectrum of risks and opportunities. The role of the director continues to be shaped by a multitude of forces including economic uncertainty, larger and more complex organisations, the increasing pace of technological innovation and digitisation along with a more rigorous regulatory environment.
At the same time there is more onus on directors to operate transparently and be more accountable for their actions and decisions.
To support directors in their challenging role KPMG has created The Directors’ Toolkit. This guide, in a user-friendly electronic format, empowers directors to more effectively discharge their duties and responsibilities while improving board performance and decision-making.
Key topics :
Duties and responsibilities of a director
Oversight of strategy and governance
Managing shareholder and stakeholder expectations
Structuring an effective board and sub-committees
Enabling key executive appointments
Managing productive meetings
Better practice terms of reference, charters and agendas
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 (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
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.
Plusieurs administrateurs et formateurs me demandent de leur proposer un document de vulgarisation sur le sujet de la gouvernance. J’ai déjà diffusé sur mon blogue un guide à l’intention des journalistes spécialisés dans le domaine de la gouvernance des sociétés à travers le monde.
Il a été publié par le Global Corporate Governance Forum et International Finance Corporation (un organisme de la World Bank) en étroite coopération avec International Center for Journalists.
Je n’ai encore rien vu de plus complet et de plus pertinent sur la meilleure manière d’appréhender les multiples problématiques reliées à la gouvernance des entreprises mondiales. La direction de Global Corporate Governance Forum m’a fait parvenir le document en français le 14 février.
Ce guide est un outil pédagogique indispensable pour acquérir une solide compréhension des diverses facettes de la gouvernance des sociétés. Les auteurs ont multiplié les exemples de problèmes d’éthiques et de conflits d’intérêts liés à la conduite des entreprises mondiales. On apprend aux journalistes économiques – et à toutes les personnes préoccupées par la saine gouvernance – à raffiner les investigations et à diffuser les résultats des analyses effectuées.
Je vous recommande fortement de lire le document, mais aussi de le conserver en lieu sûr car il est fort probable que vous aurez l’occasion de vous en servir.
Vous trouverez ci-dessous quelques extraits de l’introduction à la version anglaise de l’ouvrage que j’avais publiée antérieurement.
« This Guide is designed for reporters and editors who already have some experience covering business and finance. The goal is to help journalists develop stories that examine how a company is governed, and spot events that may have serious consequences for the company’s survival, shareholders and stakeholders. Topics include the media’s role as a watchdog, how the board of directors functions, what constitutes good practice, what financial reports reveal, what role shareholders play and how to track down and use information shedding light on a company’s inner workings. Journalists will learn how to recognize “red flags,” or warning signs, that indicate whether a company may be violating laws and rules. Tips on reporting and writing guide reporters in developing clear, balanced, fair and convincing stories.
Three recurring features in the Guide help reporters apply “lessons learned” to their own “beats,” or coverage areas:
– Reporter’s Notebook: Advise from successful business journalists
– Story Toolbox: How and where to find the story ideas
– What Do You Know? Applying the Guide’s lessons
Each chapter helps journalists acquire the knowledge and skills needed to recognize potential stories in the companies they cover, dig out the essential facts, interpret their findings and write clear, compelling stories:
What corporate governance is, and how it can lead to stories. (Chapter 1, What’s good governance, and why should journalists care?)
How understanding the role that the board and its committees play can lead to stories that competitors miss. (Chapter 2, The all-important board of directors)
Shareholders are not only the ultimate stakeholders in public companies, but they often are an excellent source for story ideas. (Chapter 3, All about shareholders)
Understanding how companies are structured helps journalists figure out how the board and management interact and why family-owned and state-owned enterprises (SOEs), may not always operate in the best interests of shareholders and the public. (Chapter 4, Inside family-owned and state-owned enterprises)
Regulatory disclosures can be a rich source of exclusive stories for journalists who know where to look and how to interpret what they see. (Chapter 5, Toeing the line: regulations and disclosure)
Reading financial statements and annual reports — especially the fine print — often leads to journalistic scoops. (Chapter 6, Finding the story behind the numbers)
Developing sources is a key element for reporters covering companies. So is dealing with resistance and pressure from company executives and public relations directors. (Chapter 7, Writing and reporting tips)
Each chapter ends with a section on Sources, which lists background resources pertinent to that chapter’s topics. At the end of the Guide, a Selected Resources section provides useful websites and recommended reading on corporate governance. The Glossary defines terminology used in covering companies and corporate governance ».
Voici un document publié par l’organisation américaire Business Roundtable qui est la plus importante association de PCD (CEO) aux É.U. et qui regroupe les plus grandes sociétés avec un total de $6 trillion en revenus annuels et plus de 12 million d’employés. Ce document présente le point de vue des hauts dirigeants de ces sociétés sur les pratiques de bonne gouvernance. Le rapport est représentatif de ce que les membres pensent que devraient être les pratiques exemplaires en matière de gouvernance. C’est une lecture vraiment très pertinente.
« Business Roundtable supports the following guiding principles:
First, the paramount duty of the board of directors of a public corporation is to select a chief executive officer and to oversee the CEO and senior management in the competent and ethical operation of the corporation on a day-to-day basis.
Second, it is the responsibility of management, under the oversight of the board, to operate the corporation in an effective and ethical manner to produce long-term value for shareholders. The board of directors, the CEO and senior management should set a “tone at the top” that establishes a culture of legal compliance and integrity. Directors and management should never put personal interests ahead of or in conflict with the interests of the corporation.
Third, it is the responsibility of management, under the oversight of the board, to develop and implement the corporation’s strategic plans, and to identify, evaluate and manage the risks inherent in the corporation’s strategy. The board of directors should understand the corporation’s strategic plans, the associated risks, and the steps that management is taking to monitor and manage those risks. The board and senior management should agree on the appropriate risk profile for the corporation, and they should be comfortable that the strategic plans are consistent with that risk profile.
Fourth, it is the responsibility of management, under the oversight of the audit committee and the board, to produce financial statements that fairly present the financial condition and results of operations of the corporation and to make the timely disclosures investors need to assess the financial and business soundness and risks of the corporation.
Fifth, it is the responsibility of the board, through its audit committee, to engage an independent accounting firm to audit the financial statements prepared by management and issue an opinion that those statements are fairly stated in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, as well as to oversee the corporation’s relationship with the outside auditor.
Sixth, it is the responsibility of the board, through its corporate governance committee, to play a leadership role in shaping the corporate governance of the corporation and the composition and leadership of the board. The corporate governance committee should regularly assess the backgrounds, skills and experience of the board and its members and engage in succession planning for the board.
Seventh, it is the responsibility of the board, through its compensation committee, to adopt and oversee the implementation of compensation policies, establish goals for performance-based compensation, and determine the compensation of the CEO and senior management. Compensation policies and goals should be aligned with the corporation’s long-term strategy, and they should create incentives to innovate and produce long-term value for shareholders without excessive risk. These policies and the resulting compensation should be communicated clearly to shareholders.
Eighth, it is the responsibility of the corporation to engage with longterm shareholders in a meaningful way on issues and concerns that are of widespread interest to long-term shareholders, with appropriate involvement from the board of directors and management.
Ninth, it is the responsibility of the corporation to deal with its employees, customers, suppliers and other constituencies in a fair and equitable manner and to exemplify the highest standards of corporate citizenship.
These responsibilities and others are critical to the functioning of the modern public corporation and the integrity of the public markets. No law or regulation can be a substitute for the voluntary adherence to these principles by corporate directors and management in a manner that fits the needs of their individual corporations ».
Un récent document de McKinsey met en exergue l’importance pour les conseils d’administration de consacrer une partie significative de leur temps à des activités de vision stratégique à long terme plutôt que de rester le nez collé sur les rapports trimestriels, les budgets et la conformité.
L’étude estime qu’environ 70 % du temps du « Board » est investi dans de telles activités qui, même si elles sont essentielles, ne sont pas au cœur de ce que les conseils d’administration devraient faire, c’est-à-dire s’occuper de stratégies et prévoir du temps pour scruter l’avenir (les compétiteurs, le marché, les opportunités, les risques, l’évolution des valeurs sociétales, la mondialisation de l’économie, etc.).
Ce virement de bord doit s’effectuer en remaniant l’ordre du jour des conseils de manière à redresser la balance des responsabilités, c’est-à-dire en consacrant plus de temps à l’avenir ! Voici un extrait de l’excellent document de McKinsey qui montre comment les conseils peuvent répartir leur temps entre des activités de nature traditionnelles et des activités de représentation du futur.
Le tableau 1, présenté dans cet extrait, donne une bonne idée de la façon dont les présidents de conseils doivent envisager l’allocation du temps entre les réunions régulières du conseil :
(1) les activités qui relèvent de la surveillance, du contrôle et du rôle de fiduciaire;
(2) les activités qui concernent la formation de la vision du futur.
Je vous invite donc à prendre connaissance de cette approche de McKinsey qui, selon moi, marque une coupure dans la façon de concevoir les rôles et les responsabilités des membres du conseil.
Debate over the role of company boards invariably intensifies when things go wrong on a grand scale, as has happened in recent years. Many of the companies whose corpses litter the industrial and financial landscape were undermined by negligent, overoptimistic, or ill-informed boards prior to the financial crisis and the ensuing deep recession. Not surprisingly, there’s been a renewed focus on improved corporate governance: better structures, more rigorous checks and balances, and greater independence by nonexecutives, for example.
McKinsey & Company competitiveness report (Photo credit: mars_discovery_district)
Governance arguably suffers most, though, when boards spend too much time looking in the rear-view mirror and not enough scanning the road ahead. We have experienced this reality all too often in our work with companies over several decades. It has also come through loud and clear during recent conversations with 25 chairmen of large public and privately held companies in Europe and Asia. Today’s board agendas, indeed, are surprisingly similar to those of a century ago, when the second Industrial Revolution was at its peak. Directors still spend the bulk of their time on quarterly reports, audit reviews, budgets, and compliance—70 percent is not atypical—instead of on matters crucial to the future prosperity and direction of the business.
The alternative is to develop a dynamic board agenda that explicitly highlights these forward-looking activities and ensures that they get sufficient time over a 12-month period. The exhibit illustrates how boards could devote more of their time to the strategic and forward-looking aspects of the agenda. This article discusses ways to achieve the right balance.
How forward-looking boards should spend their time
Voici un excellent document de Deloitte, publié dans le cadre de la série Comité de vérification en bref, qui fait état de nouvelles responsabilités du comité d’audit, particulièrement en ce qui a trait à la surveillance des auditeurs externes et à la communication d’informations financières.
Aux États-Unis, depuis quelques années, les autorités de réglementation, les défenseurs des intérêts des investisseurs et autres parties prenantes insistent de plus en plus auprès des sociétés pour qu’elles établissent un climat de confiance avec les investisseurs. Une grande partie de l’attention est centrée sur le rôle joué par le comité d’audit dans la protection des intérêts des investisseurs.
Il est probable que les appels à une plus grande transparence en ce qui touche la surveillance de l’auditeur et les autres responsabilités des comités d’audit continueront de croître.
Les comités d’audit peuvent répondre à ces appels en fournissant des informations plus pertinentes qui permettent de mieux comprendre leurs responsabilités et la façon dont celles-ci sont assumées par leurs membres. Ce numéro du Comité de vérification en bref fournit un aperçu des exigences de la SEC relatives aux rapports du comité d’audit et met en évidence les résultats d’une analyse effectuée par le cabinet américain de Deloitte en 2013 qui examinait en profondeur les informations fournies par les comités d’audit dans le cadre de leurs efforts pour assurer une plus grande transparence.
Denis Lefort, CPA, expert-conseil en Gouvernance, audit et contrôle, porte à ma connaissance une publication de la firme Deloitte qui aborde cinq points que les comités d’audit doivent prendre en considération afin de réussir en période de changement et d’incertitude :
1 . Protéger la marque et la réputation
2. Renforcer la confiance des investisseurs
3. Rendre l’information financière plus pertinente pour les parties prenantes
4. Tirer parti de l’évolution technologique
5. Payer sa « juste part » d’impôts
Voici un extrait du document ci-dessous. Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
La plupart des entreprises prennent des mesures pour améliorer leur capacité de livrer concurrence à long terme, notamment en mettant en œuvre de nouvelles technologies, en créant des partenariats, en rationalisant leurs activités ou en explorant de nouveaux marchés, mais elles doivent aussi composer avec les changements découlant des percées technologiques, de l’entrée en vigueur de nouveaux textes réglementaires et des modifications des normes d’information financière.
Audit (Photo credit: LendingMemo)
Dans un tel contexte, les comités d’audit ont un rôle de plus en plus important à jouer, qui dépasse celui de la seule surveillance des rapports financiers et autres informations réglementaires que leur organisation doit fournir.
La présente publication aborde cinq points que le comité d’audit doit prendre en considération.
Protéger la marque et la réputation :
Aujourd’hui les entreprises sont de plus en plus jugées sur leur conduite. Respecter les lois ne suffit plus; on s’attend à ce que les entreprises se conforment à des normes plus élevées. Si elles ne peuvent entièrement contrôler la perception qu’on a de leur marque, elles peuvent prendre des mesures pour se protéger contre les atteintes à leur réputation et se doter d’un plan d’action qu’elles pourront mettre en œuvre rapidement advenant une controverse.
Renforcer la confiance des investisseurs :
Les responsabilités des comités d’audit se sont accrues considérablement au cours des dix dernières années. Aujourd’hui, les organismes de réglementation internationaux projettent d’imposer de nouvelles règles pour améliorer la qualité des audits. Un grand nombre d’entre elles auront des répercussions sur la manière dont les comités d’audit s’acquittent de leurs responsabilités et font rapport aux actionnaires.
Rendre l’information financière plus pertinente pour les parties prenantes :
Les normes comptables ont fait l’objet de nombreuses modifications qui ont rendu la comptabilité moins intuitive et plus détaillée. Plusieurs modifications avaient pour but de résoudre des problèmes financiers et, plus récemment, de dissiper de plus vastes préoccupations des parties prenantes, sur les plans social et environnemental, notamment. Les comités d’audit doivent jouer un rôle actif pour faciliter l’identification, la compréhension et l’adoption de nouvelles normes tout en veillant à ce que les informations que l’entreprise communique à ses parties prenantes soient pertinentes et utiles.
Tirer parti de l’évolution technologique :
Pratiquement toutes les activités reposent à présent sur la technologie ou sont assistées par la technologie, ce qui donne aux entreprises des occasions sans précédent de réaliser des économies d’échelle, de réinventer leurs modèles d’affaires ou d’améliorer leurs liens avec les parties prenantes. Les données numériques sont aujourd’hui une richesse extrêmement prisée, ce qui rend nécessaire la mise en place de processus de gouvernance semblables à ceux qui encadrent l’information financière pour garantir l’intégrité des données et des systèmes d’information.
Payer sa « juste part » d’impôts :
De nombreuses organisations ont été accusées, tant par des groupes d’activistes que par les médias, de ne pas payer leur « juste part » d’impôts. Dans un environnement où des mesures de planification fiscale innocentes et légitimes sur le plan commercial sont mal vues, les comités d’audit doivent s’assurer que les stratégies fiscales auxquelles l’organisation a recours sont bel et bien fondées en droit et comprendre comment ces stratégies peuvent être perçues par le public.
L’analyse de ces points vise à aider les comités d’audit à établir des plans d’action adaptés à leur entreprise et à sa situation tout en créant de la valeur pour les parties prenantes.
Chacune des rubriques de la présente publication propose des points à l’intention des comités d’audit afin de les y assister.
Ce matin, Richard Leblanc nous présente un « draft » de son nouveau syllabus de cours offert à l’Université York sur la gouvernance des OBNL et des entreprises/sociétés d’état.
Ce n’est pas qu’il n’y a pas de cours dans ce domaine – loin de là – mais je puis vous assurer qu’il n’y en pas de si complets … et de si exigeants.
Voyez par vous-même en suivant le lien ci-dessous pour vous rendre sur le groupe de discussion Boards & Advisors de LinkedIn et ouvrir le document présentant le syllabus.
Si vous êtes dans le domaine de la consultation, du coaching et de la formation en gouvernance, notamment des OBNL, les éléments de contenu de ce syllabus ainsi que les nombreuses références qu’il contient vous intéressera sûrement. Bonne lecture. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
Operation of the Board, Board and Committee Meetings, and Staff Relations
Development and Retirement of Directors
Fundraising and Donor Stewardship
Financial Oversight, Anti-Fraud, External Audit, and Internal Audit
Values, Mandate, Strategy and Prerogative
Risk, Internal Controls, and Assurance
Organizational Performance, CEO Succession, and Executive Compensation
Stakeholder Accountability of Crown Corporations and Other Public Entities: Government as Sole Shareholder, Taxpayors; Members, Donors, Funding Agencies, Beneficiaries, Volunteers, Staff, Partners, Sponsors, Community
Fraud, Corruption, Lack of Oversight, and Misbehavior Case Analysis: The Senate of Canada, The Quebec Corruption Inquiry, Ontario Power Generation, the Mayor of Toronto
Voici un document australien de KPMG, très bien conçu, qui répond clairement aux questions que tous les administrateurs de sociétés se posent dans le cours de leurs mandats.
Même si la publication est dédiée à l’auditoire australien de KPMG, je crois que la réalité règlementaire nord-américaine est trop semblable pour se priver d’un bon « kit » d’outils qui peut aider à constituer un Board efficace. C’est un formidable document électronique de 130 pages, donc long à télécharger. Voyez la table des matières ci-dessous.
J’ai demandé à KPMG de me procurer une version française du même document mais il ne semble pas en exister. Bonne lecture en cette fin d’année 2013 et Joyeuses Fêtes à tous et à toutes.
Our business environment provides an ever-changing spectrum of risks and opportunities. The role of the director continues to be shaped by a multitude of forces including economic uncertainty, larger and more complex organisations, the increasing pace of technological innovation and digitisation along with a more rigorous regulatory environment.
At the same time there is more onus on directors to operate transparently and be more accountable for their actions and decisions.
To support directors in their challenging role KPMG has created The Directors’ Toolkit. This guide, in a user-friendly electronic format, empowers directors to more effectively discharge their duties and responsibilities while improving board performance and decision-making.
Key topics :
Duties and responsibilities of a director
Oversight of strategy and governance
Managing shareholder and stakeholder expectations
Structuring an effective board and sub-committees
Enabling key executive appointments
Managing productive meetings
Better practice terms of reference, charters and agendas
Voici un article choc publié par Dena Aubin et diffusé par l’agence Reuters le 10 décembre 2013. Il est ici question d’une recherche universitaire menée par deux professeurs de l’Université de Tilburg aux Pays-Bas qui montre que 40 % des administrateurs responsables de la supervision des affaires financières entretiennent des liens sociaux très étroits avec la haute direction de l’entreprise, laissant une impression de non-indépendance et de possibilité de conflit d’intérêt entre des personnes qui ont des liens d’amitié et d’affinité.
De là à penser que ces administrateurs seront plus susceptibles d’adopter des positions plus favorables à la direction, il n’y a qu’un pas à franchir. Et les chercheurs n’ont pas hésité à pousser leur investigation dans ce sens.
L’étude montre que ces situations de « proximité » peuvent donner lieu à de plus faibles contrôles financiers, notamment à des manipulations comptables, suivies de tentatives d’étouffer la vérité.
Ce sont des études comme celle-ci qui amène les autorités règlementaires à resserrer les critères d’indépendance des membres des comités d’audit.
Bonne lecture; vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Almost 40 percent of U.S. corporate directors with responsibility for monitoring the profit-and-loss ledger have social ties to the chief executive, a study says, making them look more like lapdogs than watchdogs.
Conducted by two accounting professors at Tilburg University in The Netherlands, the study reinforces long-held perceptions of a clubby culture on U.S. corporate boards, where members seldom challenge the executives they are meant to police.
The study looked at about 2,000 U.S. companies and their board audit committees, which are responsible for overseeing outside auditors and making sure financial reports are accurate. It found that personal friends of senior managers were often appointed to these committees, making the directors more likely to go along with the company’s reporting practices.
Where that was the case, earnings manipulation was more frequent and problems such as weak financial controls were covered up, the study found.
Tilburg University (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Regulations put in place over a decade ago after accounting scandals at Enron and WorldCom required audit committees to be made up only of independent directors. That meant they were never employed by the company or a firm doing business with it.
Even so, audit committee members often have long-standing social ties to executives, belonging to the same elite clubs or charity boards, the study found.
« Although such firms appear to have independent audit committees, in reality these committees offer little to no monitoring at all, » the study found.
The study, by accounting professors Liesbeth Bruynseels and Eddy Cardinaels, researched social ties with BoardEx, a business intelligence service. It appears in the January 2014 issue of the American Accounting Association’s Accounting Review.
The professors suggested that legislators consider requiring more disclosure about social connections between audit committees and CEOs, given the committees’ importance.
Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance in Newark, Delaware, said it would be difficult for regulators to define social ties.
« Is it one lunch a week, is it two lunches? Inevitably, social ties will develop when you’re on a board – you have to see that person on a regular basis, » he said.
The United States made a major push to improve audit committees’ effectiveness with the passage of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which tightened membership requirements.
More recently, regulators in Europe and the United Kingdom have been trying to get audit committees to be more rigorous in choosing outside auditors and monitoring them.
À chaque année, la firme Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) revoit son processus d’établissement des recommandations qui guide les actionnaires dans leurs votes aux assemblées annuelles.
On entend souvent parler des politiques de ISS concernant la gouvernance des sociétés mais on ne saisit pas toujours la méthodologie derrière les recommandations aux actionnaires.
Le document ci-dessous présente les mises à jour des recommandations qui s’adressent aux entreprises canadiennes cotées en bourse. Je crois que c’est un document de référence majeur pour les actionnaires qui doivent se doter d’un conseil d’administration exemplaire et de règles de gouvernance en relation avec les intérêts des actionnaires. Bonne lecture !
Ci-dessous, vous trouverez le sommaire du processus de formulation des politiques de ISS, suivi des éléments constituant la table des matières.
Each year, ISS’ Global Policy Board conducts a robust, inclusive, and transparent global policy formulation process that produces the benchmark proxy voting guidelines that will be used during the upcoming year.
The policy review and update process begins with an internal review of emerging issues and notable trends across global markets. Based on data gathered throughout the year (particularly from client and issuer feedback), ISS forms policy committees by governance topics and markets. As part of this process, the policy team examines academic literature, other empirical research, and relevant commentary. ISS also conducts surveys, convenes roundtable discussions, and posts draft policies for review and comment. Based on this broad input, ISS’ Global Policy Board reviews and approves final drafts and policy updates for the following proxy year. Annual updated policies are announced in November and apply to meetings held on and after February 1 of the following year.
Also, as part of the process, ISS collaborates with clients with customized approaches to proxy voting. ISS helps these clients develop and implement policies based on their organizations’ specific mandates and requirements. In addition to the ISS regional benchmark (standard research) policies, ISS’ research analysts apply more than 400 specific policies, including specialty policies for Socially Responsible Investors, Taft-Hartley funds and managers, and Public Employee Pension Funds, as well as hundreds of fully customized policies that reflect clients’ unique corporate governance philosophies. The vote recommendations issued under these policies often differ from those issued under the ISS benchmark policies. ISS estimates that the majority of shares that are voted by ISS’ clients fall under ISS’ custom or specialty recommendations.
This document presents the changes being made to ISS’ Benchmark Canadian Corporate Governance Policies. The full text of the updates, detailed results from the Policy Survey, and comments received during the open comment period, are all available on ISS’ Web site under the Policy Gateway.
Table des matières du document de mise à jour
BOARD
Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections
Definition of Independence – TSX and TSXV
2014 ISS Canadian Definition of Independence
Persistent Problematic Audit Related Practices – TSX
Voting on Directors for Egregious Actions – TSX and TSXV
Board Responsiveness – TSX and TSXV
Director Attendance & Overboarding – TSX
SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS & DEFENSES
Advance Notice Requirement for Director Nominations – TSX and TSXV
Enhanced Shareholder Meeting Quorum for Contested Director Election – TSX and TSXV
Le rapport annuel de Davies est toujours très attendu car il brosse un tableau très complet de l’évolution de la gouvernance au Canada. De plus, c’est un document publié en français.
Je vous invite donc à en prendre connaissance en lisant le court résumé ci-dessous et, si vous voulez en savoir plus sur les thèmes abordés, vous pouvez télécharger le document sur le site de l’entreprise.
Depuis la diversité au sein des conseils jusqu’aux risques liés aux marchés émergents, en passant par l’activisme actionnarial, cette troisième édition du Rapport de Davies sur la gouvernance, notre compte rendu annuel, analyse l’actualité sur de nombreuses questions d’intérêt pour les conseils d’administration et les observateurs du paysage de la gouvernance au Canada.
Dans le premier chapitre, Administrateurs et conseils d’administration, nous faisons le point sur l’évolution de la composition des conseils d’administration au Canada, les appels à la diversité au sein de ces conseils et des équipes de direction ainsi que les idées proposées par les autorités de réglementation et les investisseurs à cet égard. Dans le chapitre intitulé Rémunération des membres de la haute direction et des administrateurs, nous faisons état de la popularité grandissante du vote consultatif sur la rémunération de la haute direction et proposons des mesures que peuvent prendre les conseils d’administration pour éviter d’être pris de court par le résultat d’un tel vote. Dans le chapitre intitulé Questions relatives au vote des actionnaires, nous nous intéressons aux nouveautés concernant la question de l’intégrité du vote des actionnaires au Canada, les initiatives de réglementation des agences de conseil en vote et la pratique du vote à la majorité parmi les émetteurs. Dans le chapitre intitulé Initiatives des actionnaires, nous mettons en lumière les tendances et les questions d’actualité comme l’« achat de votes », la rémunération offerte aux administrateurs par les dissidents et le « vote vide » ainsi que les règlements de préavis. Dans le chapitre intitulé Surveillance des risques : les activités sur les marchés émergents, nous examinons comment les émetteurs gèrent les risques associés à leurs activités sur les marchés émergents ainsi que les nouveautés importantes touchant la législation et la mise en application de la loi en matière de lutte contre la corruption. Enfin, dans le chapitre intitulé Régimes de droits : gouvernance et changement de contrôle, nous analysons les deux cadres de réglementation des régimes de droits en situation de prise de contrôle proposés cette année par les autorités canadiennes en valeurs mobilières.
Vous trouverez ci-dessous un condensé de l’entente intervenue par les institutions européennes concernant la réforme de l’audit. Ce résumé nous est transmis par ecoDa- The European Confederation of Directors’ Associations, dont le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) est l’un des membres affiliés.
Voici donc un bref résumé suivi d’une présentation sommaire des principaux changements convenus. À la suite de cet article d’ecoDa, vous trouverez le point de vue de Julia Irvine présenté dans Economia. Bonne lecture !
Yesterday, the European institutions managed to get a provisional agreement in trilogue on the reform of the audit sector. With the agreement, audit firms will be required to rotate every 10 years. Public interest entities will only be able to extend the audit tenure once, upon tender. Under this measure, joint audit will also be encouraged. To avoid the risk of self-review, several non-audit services are prohibited under a strict ‘black list’, including stringent limits on tax advice and on services linked to the financial and investment strategy of the audit client. In addition, a cap on the provision of non-audit services is introduced.
Audit reform
1. A clarified societal role for auditors
Increased audit quality : In order to reduce the ‘expectation gap’ between what is expected from auditors and what they are bound to deliver, the new rules will require auditors to produce more detailed and informative audit reports, with a required focus on relevant information to investors.
The legislative triangle of the European Union (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Enhanced transparency : Strict transparency requirements will be introduced for auditors with stronger reporting obligations vis-à-vis supervisors. Increased communication between auditors and the audit committee of an audited entity is requested.
Better accountability : The work of auditors will be closely supervised by audit committees, whose competences are strengthened. In addition, the package introduces the possibility for 5% of the shareholders of the company to initiate actions to dismiss the auditors. A set of administrative sanctions that can be applied by the competent authorities is also foreseen for breaches of the new rules.
2. A strong independence regime
Mandatory rotation of audit firms : Audit firms will be required to rotate after an engagement period of 10 years. After maximum 10 years, the period can be extended by up to 10 additional years if tenders are carried out, and by up to 14 additional years in case of joint audit, i.e. if the company being audited appoints more than one audit firm to carry out its audit. A calibrated transitional period taking into account the duration of the audit engagement is foreseen to avoid a cliff effect following the entry into force of the new rules.
Prohibition of certain non-audit services : Audit firms will be strictly prohibited from providing non-audit services to their audit clients, including stringent limits on tax advice and services linked to the financial and investment strategy of the audit client. This aims to limit risk of conflicts of interest, when auditors are involved in decisions impacting the management of a company. This will also substantially limit the ‘self-review’ risks for auditors.
Cap on the provision of non-audit services: To reduce the risks of conflicts of interest, the new rules will introduce a cap of 70% on the fees generated for non-audit services others than those prohibited based on a three-year average at the group level.
3. A more dynamic and competitive EU audit market
A Single Market for statutory audit : The new rules will provide a level playing field for auditors at EU level through enhanced cross-border mobility and the harmonisation of International Standards on Auditing (ISAs).
More choice : In order to promote competition, the new rules prohibit restrictive ‘Big Four only’ third party clauses imposed on companies. Incentives for joint audit and tendering will be introduced, and a proportionate application of the rules will be applied to avoid extra burden for small and mid-tier audit firms. Tools to monitor the concentration of the audit market will be reinforced.
Enhanced supervision of the audit sector : Cooperation between national supervisors will be enhanced at EU level, with a specific role devoted to the European Markets and Securities Authority (ESMA) with regard to international cooperation on audit oversight.
Voici également le point de vue de Julia Irvine présenté dans Economia.
Listed companies will have to tender their audit every 10 years and rotate auditors every 20 years after trilogue agreement was reached this morning on a package of audit reform measures
Certain non-audit services – such as some tax and corporate finance advice – which impact on an audit client’s financial and investment strategy, will be banned, and shareholders will find it easier to initiate action to get the auditors dismissed.
The measures, which were agreed between the European Parliament and the Lithuanian EU presidency, still have to be approved later this week by COREPER, the committee of permanent representatives of the member states. The European Parliament will then have to formally adopt the text next year.
Negotiations over audit reform reached stalemate earlier this month and led to the decision by British MEP and lead rapporteur Sajjad Karim to cancel scheduled trilogue discussions “because of a lack of will by some parties to compromise”. The major sticking points were mandatory rotation of auditors and non-audit services.
However, the breakthrough came today, thanks to “constructive efforts from all sides to find a way forward”, Karim said, adding that the compromise on a 20-year timespan for rotation was workable and a “considerable improvement on the commission’s original proposal”.
The agreed measures ensure that auditors will be key contributors to economic and financial stability through increased audit quality, stronger independence requirements and more open and dynamic EU audit market.
Other measures under the agreement include extending companies that have joint auditors can extend the 20 years to 24 and a four-year transitional period to avoid every company going out to tender at the same time.
Auditors will be prohibited from providing certain non-audit services to audit clients, including “stringent limits” on tax advice and services. The measures also include a 70% cap on fees from all other non-audit services, based on a three-year average at group level.
Big Four only clauses are banned and incentives for joint audit and tendering (as yet unspecified) are to be introduced. It is also intended that the rules will be applied proportionately to avoid extra burdens on small and mid-tier audit firms.
Auditors will have to provide more detailed and informative audit reports, focusing on relevant information for investors, they will be bound by strict transparency requirements in their communications with supervisors and will generally be required to talk more often to a client’s audit committee.
Shareholders will be able to start action to dismiss the auditors, provided 5% of them collaborate.
Finally, the package of measures will ensure a level playing field for auditors throughout the European Union through enhanced cross-border mobility and harmonisation of international auditing standards.
EU commissioner Michel Barnier hailed the outline agreement as “the first step towards increasing audit quality and re-establishing investor confidence in financial information, an essential ingredient for investment and economic growth in Europe”.
Auditors, he said, played an important societal role by providing stakeholders with an accurate reflection of the veracity of companies’ financial statements. “However, a number of banks were given clean bills of health despite huge losses from 2007 onwards. In relation to the real economy, inspection reports from the member states revealed lack of professional scepticism by auditors, misstatements and a lack of fresh thinking in the audits of major companies because of the average long-lasting relationship between the auditor and their clients.
“Taken all together, the agreed measures ensure that auditors will be key contributors to economic and financial stability through increased audit quality, stronger independence requirements and more open and dynamic EU audit markets.”
Karim added, “The European Parliament is optimistic that the proposal can be approved by a majority of member states and MEPs, considering it is a balanced compromise that will go a long way towards restoring confidence in the audit market.”
Initial reaction from the profession to the news was cautious. ICAEW chief executive Michael Izza said that after three years of debate and hard work, there was now hope that the follow-up work might be achieved before the EU elections on 22 May next year.
“Focus now needs to move to the transition and practical implications,” he said. “It is important not to underestimate the considerable practical impact the reform package will have, not only on the auditing profession but also on companies across the EU.
“It will take time for everybody involved – the profession, business, regulators – to work through the details and get to grips with all the changes.”
Voici un article très intéressant sur un sujet peu abordé dans ce blogue et peu discuté dans les « actualités » en gouvernance; il s’agit des nouvelles réglementations susceptibles d’affecter la gestion des grandes firmes d’audit.
Rappelons que les BIG-FOUR étaient auto réglementées avant 2002. La loi Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) a limité les mandats de consultation que les firmes d’audit effectuaient pour le compte de leurs clients de services d’audit, en plus de mettre sur pied une nouvelle autorité de réglementation, le « Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) ».
Les autorités réglementaires américaines et européennes étudient diverses propositions de changement dont les suivantes :
l’ajout d’une section dans le rapport d’audit qui soulignerait clairement les éléments critiques à considérer, du genre : « Qu’est ce qui empêche les auditeurs de dormir la nuit »;
la réduction de la portion que les firmes d’audit peuvent sous-contracter à d’autres firmes sans faire de divulgation, réduction de 25 % à 5 %;
la divulgation de l’identité de l’associé responsable de chaque audit;
l’obligation de la rotation des firmes d’audit : (1) obligation pour une société d’aller en appel d’offre tous les dix ans et (2) obligation de changer de firme d’audit tous les 20 ans (15 ans pour les entreprises du secteur financier).
Je vous invite à lire l’article ci-dessous publié dans The Economist le 5 décembre 2013. Voici également un extrait de cet article.
Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
American Accounting Association (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
EVERY financial meltdown prompts a hunt for scapegoats. In the wake of the most recent one, calls to reform accounting have grown particularly loud, and action is on the way. In the coming months both America and the European Union are expected to introduce new rules aimed at enhancing auditors’ independence. But for all the heated debate over the changes, any improvement is likely to be modest.
America’s bean-counters were effectively self-regulating until 2002. That year, following a wave of accounting scandals, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley act to reform corporate governance. It limited the consulting work firms could do for their audit clients and set up a new regulator, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. At a meeting on December 4th it outlined three policies it expects to implement by the end of 2014.
Yet even the most vocal advocates of mandatory rotation concede that it is no cure-all. Auditors have a conflict of interest at the heart of their business—they are paid by the companies they are supposed to assess objectively. Unless that changes, there will be no substitute for investors doing their own due diligence.
Je reproduis, ci-dessous, un article du blogue de Norman Marks sur les questions qu’un candidat devrait se poser avant d’accepter le poste de président du comité d’audit.
L’auteur a recueilli les points de vue personnel et professionnel des praticiens de longue date dans le domaine de la gouvernance, plus précisément dans les fonctions d’audit et de gestion des risques. Bonne lecture.
If I was asked to join a board and serve as the chair of the audit committee (which I am qualified to do), I would apply the lessons from what seems like a lifetime of working with audit committees. In most cases, the chair was excellent and I would hope to be as effective as they were.
After what I would assume would be a thorough and detailed orientation to the organization and its challenges by such key people as the CEO, CFO and her direct reports, General Counsel, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Strategy Officer, Chief Information Officer, Chief Audit Executive, Chief Risk Officer, head of Investor Relations, Chief Information Security Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, Chairman of the Board or Lead Independent Director, lead external audit partner, and outside counsel (and others, depending on the organization), I would turn my attention to the following:
Do I now have a fair understanding of how the organization creates value, its strategies, and the risks to those strategies?
Do I have a sufficient understanding of the organization’s business model, including its primary products, organization and key executives, business operations, partners, customers and suppliers, etc.?
How strong is the management team? Are there any individuals whose performance I need to pay attention to, perhaps asking more detailed questions when they provide information?
Who else is on the audit committee and do we collectively have the insight, experience, and understanding necessary to be effective? Where are the gaps and how will they be addressed?
What are the primary financial reporting risks and how well are they addressed? What areas merit, if any, special attention by the audit committee? Who should I look to for assurance they are being managed satisfactorily? Who owns the compliance program (if any) on controls over financial reporting, and how strong is the assessment team?
What are the other significant financial and other risks (for which risk management oversight has been delegated by the full board) that merit special attention? Who should I look to for assurance they are being managed satisfactorily?
How strong is the external audit team and how well do they work with management and the internal audit team? What are their primary concerns? Is their fee structure sufficient or excessive? Is their independence jeopardized by the services they provide beyond the financial statement audit (even if permitted by their standards)?
How strong is the internal audit team and does the CAE have the respect of the management team and the external auditor? Are they sufficiently resourced? Are they free from undue management influence (for example, is the CAE hoping for promotion to a position in management, does he have free access to the audit committee, and is his compensation set by management or the audit committee)? What are their primary concerns? Do they provide a formal periodic opinion on the adequacy of the organization’s processes for governance and management of risk, as well as the related controls? How do they determine what to audit?
Who owns and sets the agenda for the audit committee? Is there sufficient time and are there enough meetings to satisfy our oversight obligations?
Do the right people attend the audit committee meetings, such as the general counsel, CFO, CAE, CRO, CCO, chief accounting officer, and the external audit partner?
How does the approval process work for the periodic and annual filings with the regulator (e.g., the SEC)?
How are allegations of inappropriate conduct managed? Who owns the compliance hotline, who decides what will be investigated and how, and at what point is the audit committee involved? Is there assurance that allegations will be objectively investigated without retaliation?
What concerns do the other members of the audit committee have? Does the former chair of the committee have any advice?
Deloitte a publié ce premier numéro de Questions particulières pour les conseils d’administration d’organismes à but non lucratif (OBNL) afin d’analyser de plus près quelques-uns des principaux problèmes ou défis auxquels les administrateurs et leur organisation ont à faire face.
Les organismes à but non lucratif (OBNL) jouent un rôle important dans notre société, fournissant un large éventail de services dans divers secteurs d’activité. Même s’ils doivent faire face à des défis identiques ou semblables à ceux des organismes à but lucratif, les organismes à but non lucratif doivent résoudre des questions qui leur sont propres. Il arrive parfois qu’ils soient en concurrence directe avec des organismes à but lucratif, notamment au moment de recruter les meilleurs éléments ayant les capacités et l’expertise requises pour leur permettre de réaliser leur mission, aspect dont nous traitons dans la présente publication.
Deloitte logo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Les autres sujets abordés dans la présente publication comprennent notamment les changements apportés à l’environnement réglementaire des organismes à but non lucratif découlant d’une nouvelle loi fédérale, à savoir la Loi canadienne sur les organisations à but non lucratif, de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels et les documents électroniques et des mesures législatives canadiennes contre les pourriels. Certains organismes à but non lucratif pourraient devoir revoir leur stratégie à la lumière de ces nouvelles règles, tandis que d’autres pourraient décider de le faire afin de tirer avantage des nouvelles technologies, dont les réseaux sociaux, afin de communiquer de manière plus efficace avec les parties prenantes et accroître le soutien de la collectivité.
La présente publication analyse ces questions et d’autres défis importants auxquels les organismes à but non lucratif et leurs administrateurs devront vraisemblablement faire face durant l’année à venir, tels qu’ils ont été définis par des professionnels de Deloitte qui travaillent auprès d’organismes à but non lucratif et qui sont souvent eux-mêmes administrateurs d’organismes à but non lucratif; des organismes ont recommandé leurs propres pratiques exemplaires qui, avec leur autorisation, ont été incluses dans cette publication.
Chaque article renferme des questions que les administrateurs pourraient poser pour explorer davantage ces enjeux avec leur propre conseil d’administration et les membres de la direction. En outre, les articles sont accompagnés d’outils et de ressources que les administrateurs peuvent utiliser pour obtenir une compréhension plus approfondie des questions abordées et améliorer l’efficacité du conseil dans le traitement de ces questions…
… Les conseils qui dirigent plutôt que d’être dirigés seront ceux qui auront adapté avec succès leurs stratégies en vue de transformer ces défis en occasions et qui tireront parti des exigences en matière de conformité pour mettre en œuvre des concepts novateurs.
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 