Dix (10) activités que les conseils d’administration devraient éviter de faire !

Voici le condensé d’un article publié par Deloitte en 2011 et que j’ai relayé à mes premiers abonnés au début de la création de mon blogue.

En revisitant mes billets, j’ai été en mesure de constater que plusieurs parutions étaient encore d’une grande pertinence. Ainsi, afin de revenir sur mes débuts comme blogueur, je vous présente un document de la firme Deloitte qui énumère dix (10) activités que les conseils d’administration doivent éviter de faire.

Les suggestions sont toujours aussi d’actualité. Bonne relecture !

Avoid presentation overload

Presentations should not dominate board meetings. If your board meetings consist of a scripted agenda packed with one presentation after another, there may not be sufficient time for substantive discussions. The majority of board meetings should be focused on candid dialogue about the critical strategic issues facing the company. The advance meeting materials should comprise information that provides the basis for the discussions held during the meeting. Management should feel confident that the board will read these pre-meeting materials, and the board must commit an adequate amount of time in advance of the meeting to do so.

Avoid understating the importance of compliance

There is no room for a culture of complacency when it comes to compliance with laws and regulations. As noted in the Deloitte publication

Avoid postponing the CEO succession discussion

CEO succession planning is one of the primary roles of the board. With the changing governance landscape and new and proposed regulations, the board has a full agenda these days. However, it is important to occasionally take a step back to ensure the board is addressing this important responsibility. During this time of rebuilding and prior to the implementation of new regulations, boards should assess where time is being spent and perhaps redirect focus on succession.

It is important to note that the succession planning process is continual and doesn’t end when a new CEO is selected. As the company evolves, its needs change, as do the skills required of the leadership team. The board needs to ensure that a leadership pipeline is developed and that its members have ample opportunity to connect with the next generation of leaders.

Avoid the trap of homogeneity

The topic of board composition and having the « right » people on the board continues to receive much attention. The SEC has proposed rules that would require more disclosure about director qualifications, including what makes each director qualified to participate on certain board committees. The shift to independent board members facilitated a move away from a « friends on the board » approach to a new mix. However, the board needs to assess whether this new mix translates into a positive and productive board dynamic. Boards should take a closer look at the expertise, experience and other qualities of each member to ensure the board that can provide the right expertise. Diversity of thought provides the perspectives needed to effectively address critical topics, which can contribute to greater productivity and ultimately a stronger board.

Avoid excessive short-term focus

Perpetual existence is one of the principal reasons for the initial development of a corporation. However, recent history offers many examples of modern corporate entities managing to reach short-term results at the expense of long-term prosperity. The board can demonstrate its leadership by being the voice of reason and openly discussing the sustainability of strategic initiatives. This can result in a well-governed company with a greater chance of achieving long-term, sustainable success.

Avoid approvals if you don’t understand the issue

Complex issues can have significant implications for the survival of an organization. It is up to directors to make sure that they understand issues that can alter the future of an enterprise before a vote is taken. This doesn’t require dissecting every detail, but it should consist of a thorough investigation and assessment of the risks and rewards of proposed transactions. If you don’t adequately understand the issue, ask for more education from management or external experts. It comes down to being able to ask the tough questions of management and probing further if things do not make sense. Consensus doesn’t mean going along with the crowd. True consensus results from a thorough debate and airing of the issues before the board, resulting in a more informed vote by directors.

Avoid discounting the value of experience

As a director, it is important to recognize the value that your experience can bring to the issues at hand. Good governance doesn’t mean checking all the right boxes. Rather, it is bringing together the diverse skills and experiences of each director to lead the company through challenges. Directors can provide greater insight by being ‘situationally aware’ when evaluating events and courses of action to take. Just as the captain of a ship needs to understand the various environmental factors that influence navigation, boards need to understand the external risks that may have an impact on the navigation of the company. Consider the context of the current issue, how it is similar to, or different from, previous experiences, what alternatives could be considered, and how outside forces may impede a successful outcome. Don’t discount the value of experience just because it was gained outside the boardroom.

Avoid stepping over the line into management’s role

A board that makes management decisions will find it difficult to hold the CEO accountable for the outcome. A director’s role is to oversee the efforts of management rather than stepping into management’s shoes. Directors must make a concentrated effort to ensure that they have clarity on management’s role, which is to operate the company. The distinction between the board and management is often blurred by directors who forget that they are not charged with running the day-to-day operations of an enterprise. This doesn’t prevent a director from getting into the details of an issue facing the company, but it does mean that directors should avoid stepping over the line.

Avoid ignoring shareholders

A company’s shareholders are among the most important and potentially vocal constituents of the enterprise. Concerns can sometimes be addressed by providing shareholders an audience with the board to air their concerns. Historically, compliance with the SEC Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD) rules has been perceived as a hindrance to directors engaging in shareholder dialogue and meetings. As outlined in the Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance policy briefing.

Avoid a bias to risk aversion

With the recent focus on excessive risk-taking and its impact on the credit crisis, there is concern that companies and boards may become risk-averse.

New Deloitte survey on risk management effectiveness

PLANIFICATION D’AUDIT INTERNE BASÉE SUR LES RISQUES

Denis Lefort, CPA, expert-conseil en Gouvernance, audit et contrôle, porte à ma connaissance un document de la firme Thomson Reuters (White paper) qui aborde les écueils que n’ont pas su toujours éviter les responsables d’audit interne lors du déploiement de leur processus de planification annuelle/triennale fondé sur les risques.

Votre planification prend-t-elle vraiment en compte les objectifs stratégiques de votre organisation ainsi que les risques qui pourraient prévenir leur réalisation…
Votre planification prend-t-elle vraiment en compte les travaux réalisés par les autres fonctions d’assurance de votre organisation (Gestion des risques, Conformité, Finance, etc..)…
Votre planification prend-t-elle vraiment en compte les préoccupations des dirigeants….

Voici un aperçu de la table des matières du document. Bonne lecture et bonne réflexion.

PLANIFICATION D’AUDIT INTERNE BASÉE SUR LES RISQUES

A TYPICAL INTERNAL AUDIT SCENARIO

REVIEW STANDARD INTERNAL AUDIT PROCEDURES

LISTEN TO MANAGEMENT: THE REAL OPPORTUNITY

LAY THE FOUNDATIONS: THE IMPORTANCE OF A ROBUST METHODOLOGY

KNOW YOUR COMPANY’S RISK APPETITE

PLAN FOR SUCCESS

UNDERSTAND THE BUSINESS AND ITS CULTURE

As the COSO Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) states, « risk assessment involves a dynamic and iterative process for identifying and assessing risks to the achievement of objectives ». Yet many in-house internal audit functions look at the annual internal audit risk assessment process as a check-the-box activity, required mainly to be in compliance with the IIA professional practices framework.

Typically, a three or five-year review cycle for the entire organization is already in place, and the annual internal audit risk assessment barely scratches the surface: It is merely used to justify minor modifications in the risk-based internal audit plan. Yet the internal audit risk assessment presents an often missed opportunity for internal auditors to understand their organization’s evolving objectives and implement a more dynamic risk-based approach to the internal audit process. Let’s take a look at a typical scenario played out every day and see if we, as uninvolved by-standers, can audit the process and see it if falls short in any way.

In advance of this year’s risk assessment, the internal audit department reviewed and revised their risk assessment process and the various preparation materials for management participants. The preparation materials included a list of key management participants with their preferred contact method, a list of internal audit risk assessment questions, an announcement letter explaining the importance of the annual risk assessment process, and a presentation that provided examples of beneficial insight received from the previous year’s risk assessment.

During the risk assessment, the internal audit staff rigorously captures each management remarks in an effort to record each detail, be it quantitative or qualitative. As the « scribe, » the internal audit staff is responsible for note taking, while the internal audit director asks management a series of questions from the annual list of internal audit risk assessment queries. The internal audit director conducts the interview in a way that illustrates both their tremendous understanding of the business and their ability to not get bogged down in the details. The individual representing management, on the other hand, usually provides general responses highlighting a few generic risks inherent in their business, but not enough for one to actually audit. One of those general responses was around an increase in the organization’s credit risk exposure.

La transformation de l’audit interne par l’utilisation de la pensée critique | KPMG

Denis Lefort, CPA, expert-conseil en Gouvernance, audit et contrôle, porte à ma connaissance un document de la firme KPMG qui présente le concept de pensée critique (critical thinking) adapté à l’audit interne. Ce document présente également une pyramide des différents niveaux de maturité de l’audit interne, laquelle culmine avec la pensée critique, puis la création de valeur.

Ce document propose trois ajustements au cycle d’audit interne pour bien refléter une approche intégrant la pensée critique.

À l’instar de Denis Lefort, je vous encourage à lire ce document très intéressant lequel saura peut-être vous inspirer !

Transforming Internal Audit Through Critical Thinking

In an uncertain and challenging economy, organizations are seeking an approach to internal audit that goes beyond reviewing past activities. Instead, they want internal audits that are insightful, forward looking, and go beyond preserving value to creating value on a departmental, divisional, or organization-wide level.

To meet these expectations, internal audit leaders must strive to migrate to more advanced stages of maturity that evolve basic auditing processes and skills towards an approach to create value and insight to an organization. Many internal audit functions establish goals to achieve higher value; however, they fall short in one of two ways:

The skill sets and competencies of the team are not sufficiently cross-functional or developed in each team member to deliver the expected value

The internal audit approach is not redesigned to facilitate a new approach in planning, execution, and reporting of results.

This is where the critical thinking approach comes into play. Critical thinking is defined as an open-minded approach to analyzing a situation or task for the development of supportable conclusions and conveying the assessed results in a logical manner. The application of this concept in internal audit is where value can be unleashed within an organization. Applying critical thought to internal audit is more than just a planning exercise, but one in which every element of your process is challenged. This step-by-step exercise of identifying existing or new interdependencies, inputs, relationships, and opportunities in each phase of the audit can create new information for eager business leaders about how to approach risks and improvement opportunities from a new angle.

Critical thinking can help shift the purpose of internal audit to create value and expand or develop the positive perception of the department across the organization. The full maturity, when successfully implemented, goes a level beyond operational auditing and should result in opening more doors for internal audit to sit on steering committees, task forces, and other strategic initiatives. Critical thinking as a core approach for internal audit establishes a strategic partner within the business, focused on achieving balance between risk management and business performance.

De nouvelles responsabilités pour les comités d’audit | Deloitte

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.

Bonne lecture !

Une nouvelle ère pour la communication d’informations par les comités d’audit

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.

La présidence du comité d’audit ?

Le rôle de l’audit interne dans l’identification des risques émergents

Denis Lefort, CPA, expert-conseil en Gouvernance, audit et contrôle, porte à ma connaissance un document de la firme Thomson Reuters (White Paper) très intéressant sur le rôle de l’audit interne dans l’identification des risques émergents.

EYE ON THE HORIZON : INTERNAL AUDIT’S ROLE IN IDENTIFYING EMERGING RISKS

Key elements of emerging risks

Reinsurance company Swiss Re defines emerging risks as “newly developing or changing risks which are difficult to quantify and which may have a major impact on the organisation.” This identifies their key elements.

Emerging risks may be entirely new, such as those posed by social media or technological innovation. Or they may come from existing risks that evolve or escalate – for example, the way counterparty credit risk or liquidity risk sky-rocketed during the 2008 financial crisis.

Newly developing risks lack precedent or history, and their precise form may not be immediately clear, which makes them difficult to measure or model. Changing risks are at least familiar in their shape and nature, although the rate of transformation and intensity can make them hard to quantify.

The final key element of emerging risks is their potential impact. New or changing risks can be as menacing as those the organisation deals with on a daily basis, and sometimes even more so. To give just one example, the way in which the music business failed to address the implications of digital downloads allowed a complete outsider, the computer company Apple, to step in and define and dominate the new market.

Emerging risks also threaten through their apparent remoteness or their obscurity. US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld distinguished between things we know we do not know (‘known unknowns’), and things we do not know we do not know (‘unknown unknowns’). In the first category are risks whose shape might be familiar, but where we do not necessarily understand all of their elements – causes, potential impact, probability or timing. Unknown unknowns are events that are so out of left field or seemingly farfetchedthat it takes great insight or a leap of the imagination to even articulate them. These include the ‘black swan’ events highlighted by the investor-philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb, where the human tendency is to dismiss them as improbable beforehand, then rationalise them after they occur. The 9/11 terrorist attack, or the financial crash of 2008, or the invention of the internet show that not only do black swan events happen, but they do so more frequently than is generally recognised, and they have an historically significant impact (and not always negative).

Many emerging risks are characterised by their global nature, their scale or their longer-term horizon – climate change is an example that displays all of these elements. In other cases, it is less the individual events themselves, some of which may be relatively moderate or manageable on their own, as the conflation of circumstances that creates a ‘perfect storm’.

Vous pouvez aussi consulter l’enquête de Thomson Reuters Accelus Survey on Internal Audit dont nous avons parlé dans notre billet du 7 juin.

New duties on horizon for internal auditors

“The clear message from the survey is that internal audit functions need to stop thinking about themselves as compliance specialists and start taking on a much larger, more strategic role within the organization,” Ernst & Young LLP internal audit leader Brian Schwartz said in a news release. “IA is increasingly being asked by senior management and the board to provide broader business insights and better anticipate traditional and emerging risks, even as they maintain their focus on non-negotiable compliance activities.”

New risks

As strategic opportunities emerge, internal auditors also are adjusting to new compliance duties, according to the survey. Globalization has resulted in increased revenue from emerging markets for many companies, so new regulatory, cultural, tax, and talent risks are emerging.

Thomson Reuters Messenger (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Internal audit will play a more prominent role in evaluating these risks, according to the survey report. Although slightly more than one-fourth (27%) of respondents are heavily involved in identifying, assessing, and monitoring emerging risks now, 54% expect to be heavily involved in the next two years.

The biggest primary risks that respondents said their organizations are tracking are:

Economic stability (54%).

Cybersecurity (52%).

Major shifts in technology (48%).

Strategic transactions in global locations (44%).

Data privacy regulations (39%).

Survey respondents said the skills most often found to be lacking in internal audit functions are:

Data analytics;

Business strategy;

Deep industry experience;

Risk management; and

Fraud prevention and detection.

“As corporate leaders demand a greater measure of strategy and insight from their internal audit functions, CAEs will need to move quickly to close competency gaps and ensure that they have the right people in the right place, at the right time.” Schwartz said. “If they fail to meet organizational expectations, they risk being left behind or consigned to more transactional compliance activities.”

Keeping Internal Auditors Up to the Challenge (forbes.com)

Internal Audit Has To STOP Focusing On Internal Controls (business2community.com)

Changement important dans la relation auditeur externe/interne | Financial Reporting Council (FRC) (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Useful Internal Auditing in 4 Easy Steps (isocertificationaustralia.com)

Thomson Reuters Develops Accelus Governance, Risk and Compliance Platform (risk-technology.typepad.com)

Comité des C.A. sur la surveillance des risques

Ci-dessous, vous trouverez un billet, partagé par Denis Lefort, expert-conseil en gouvernance et en audit interne, qui vous incite à prendre connaissance du Bulletin de janvier 2014 du Conference Board intitulé « Risk Oversight: Evolving expectation for Board« .

Risk Oversight : Evolving Expectations for Boards

Présenté par Denis Lefort, CPA, CA, CIA, CRMA

Ce document, très intéressant, fait un retour en arrière sur les différentes analyses et recommandations effectuées par différents groupes dont, le NACD, la SEC, le SSG, Dodd-Frank, ICGN, FSB, FRC (les acronymes sont explicitées dans le document de 10 pages), dans la foulée des scandales financiers de 2008.

English: Contribution and prioritizing threats and risks to Risk Management Effectiveness (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Le document est très critique quant au rôle très actif que devraient jouer les conseils d’administration au niveau de la surveillance des risques. Il est aussi très critique des approches mises en œuvre par les fonctions Gestion des risques et audit interne. Enfin, des recommandations sont formulées pour ces trois instances.

Bien qu’au départ, le document ait ciblé les institutions financières, ses propos peuvent s’appliquer à un grand éventail d’organisations. C’est pourquoi je vous encourage tous à en prendre connaissance et à le partager avec vos dirigeants, membres de conseils, collègues et contacts professionnels. Voici un extrait. Bonne lecture !

The Risk Oversight Committee is responsible for :

a. determining where and when formal documented risk assessments should be completed, recognizing that additional risk management rigor and formality should be cost/benefit justified

b. ensuring that business units are identifying and reliably reporting the material risks to the key objectives identified in their annual strategic plans and core foundation objectives necessary for sustained success, including compliance with applicable laws and regulations

c. reviewing and assessing whether material risks being accepted across XYZ are consistent with the corporation’s risk appetite and tolerance

d. developing, implementing, and monitoring overall compliance with this policy

e. overseeing development, administration and periodic review of this policy for approval by the board of directors

f. reviewing and approving the annual external disclosures related to risk oversight processes required by securiti esregulators

g. reporting periodically to the CEO and the board on the corporation’s consolidated residual risk position

h. ensuring that an appropriate culture of risk-awareness exists throughout the organization

Business unit leaders are responsible for:

a. managing risks to their unit’s business objectives within the corporation’s risk appetite/tolerance

b. identifying in their business when they believe the benefits of formal risk assessment exceed the costs, or when requested to by the CEO or risk oversight committee

Risk management and assurance support services unit is responsible for :

a. providing risk assessment training, facilitation, and assessment services to senior management and business units upon request

b. annually preparing a consolidated report on XYZ’s most significant residual risks and related residual risk status, and a report on the current effectiveness and maturity of the Corporation’s risk management processes for review by the risk oversight committee, senior management, and the corporation’s board of directors

c. completing risk assessments of specific objectives that have not been formally assessed and reported on by business units when asked to by the risk oversight committee, senior management, or the board of directors; or if the risk management support services team leader believes that a formal risk assessment is warranted to provide a materially reliable risk status report to senior management and the board of directors

d. conducting independent quality assurance reviews on risk assessments completed by business units and providing feedback to enhance the quality and reliability of those assessments

e. participating in the drafting and review of the corporation’s annual disclosures in the Annual Reports and Proxy Statement related to risk management and oversight

Audit and Risk Management

Redefining The Role Of Internal Audit: Part Two (business2community.com)

Redefining The Role Of Internal Audit: Avoiding Redundancy (business2community.com)

Risk Based Internal Audit Planning (learnsigma.co.uk)

The difference between internal audit and external audit, by a firm consulting (iareportg5.wordpress.com)

Getting from Continuous Auditing to Continuous Risk Assessment (mjsnook.co)

The Internal Audit Activity’s Role in Governance, Risk, and Control (IIA Certified Internal Auditor – Part 1) (examcertifytraining.wordpress.com)

Syllabus d’un cours sur la gouvernance des OBNL et des entreprises d’état

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.

Syllabus du cours « Governance of Government Enterprises and Not-for-Profit Organizations »

Voici les thèmes des sessions :

Introduction to Accountability Issues in Governmental and Not-for-Profit Organizations
Legal Framework, Structure, Rationale, Policies, Controls
Governance of State Owned Enterprises
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

Document de KPMG sur les bonnes pratiques de constitution d’un Board | The Directors Toolkit

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.

The Directors Toolkit

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

Establishing new boar

Article relié :

Le comité de gouvernance du C.A. | Élément clé d’une solide stratégie (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Liens étroits entre les PCD (CEO) et les administrateurs des comités d’audit

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.

Clubby ties between U.S. CEOs and board audit committees: study

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.

Clubby ties between U.S. CEOs and board audit committees-study (xe.com)

Le comité de gouvernance du C.A. | Élément clé d’une solide stratégie (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

US audit watchdog reviving controversial plan to require firms to disclose names of people who work on audits – @Reuters (reuters.com)

Business Basics – Corporate Audits (business2community.com)

Auditors told to up their game by Financial Reporting Council (theguardian.com)

Politiques de gouvernance des sociétés canadiennes | Mise à jour 2014 de ISS

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 !

Canadian Corporate Governance Policy | 2014 Updates of ISS

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

COMPENSATION

Executive Pay Evaluation: Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation – Management Proposals – TSX

Pay for Performance Evaluation

Board Communications and Responsiveness

Equity Compensation Plans – TSX

Non-Employee Director Participation/Director Limit

Repricing Proposals – TSX and TSXV

ISS Releases Survey for 2014 Policy Updates (blogs.law.harvard.edu)

Institutional Shareholder Services Unveils 2014 Proxy Voting Policies (hispanicbusiness.com)

Conflicts of Interest and Competition in the Proxy Advisory Industry (clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu)

Le point sur la gouvernance au Canada | Rapport de Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg

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.

Cliquez sur le lien ci-dessous. Bonne lecture !

Le point sur la gouvernance au Canada | Rapport de Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg

Rapport de Davies sur la gouvernance 2013

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.

Pour consulter le sommaire, cliquez ici. Pour lire le document complet, cliquez ici.

Le rôle de l’audit interne dans l’identification des risques émergents

C’est un rôle très stimulant pour les administrateurs et les gestionnaires prêts à relever les défis. Voici un extrait du document. Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.

EYE ON THE HORIZON : INTERNAL AUDIT’S ROLE IN IDENTIFYING EMERGING RISKS

Key elements of emerging risks

Reinsurance company Swiss Re defines emerging risks as “newly developing or changing risks which are difficult to quantify and which may have a major impact on the organisation.” This identifies their key elements.

Emerging risks may be entirely new, such as those posed by social media or technological innovation. Or they may come from existing risks that evolve or escalate – for example, the way counterparty credit risk or liquidity risk sky-rocketed during the 2008 financial crisis.

Newly developing risks lack precedent or history, and their precise form may not be immediately clear, which makes them difficult to measure or model. Changing risks are at least familiar in their shape and nature, although the rate of transformation and intensity can make them hard to quantify.

The final key element of emerging risks is their potential impact. New or changing risks can be as menacing as those the organisation deals with on a daily basis, and sometimes even more so. To give just one example, the way in which the music business failed to address the implications of digital downloads allowed a complete outsider, the computer company Apple, to step in and define and dominate the new market.

Emerging risks also threaten through their apparent remoteness or their obscurity. US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld distinguished between things we know we do not know (‘known unknowns’), and things we do not know we do not know (‘unknown unknowns’). In the first category are risks whose shape might be familiar, but where we do not necessarily understand all of their elements – causes, potential impact, probability or timing. Unknown unknowns are events that are so out of left field or seemingly farfetchedthat it takes great insight or a leap of the imagination to even articulate them. These include the ‘black swan’ events highlighted by the investor-philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb, where the human tendency is to dismiss them as improbable beforehand, then rationalise them after they occur. The 9/11 terrorist attack, or the financial crash of 2008, or the invention of the internet show that not only do black swan events happen, but they do so more frequently than is generally recognised, and they have an historically significant impact (and not always negative).

Many emerging risks are characterised by their global nature, their scale or their longer-term horizon – climate change is an example that displays all of these elements. In other cases, it is less the individual events themselves, some of which may be relatively moderate or manageable on their own, as the conflation of circumstances that creates a ‘perfect storm’.

Vous pouvez aussi consulter l’enquête de Thomson Reuters Accelus Survey on Internal Audit dont nous avons parlé dans notre billet du 7 juin.

New duties on horizon for internal auditors

New risks

As strategic opportunities emerge, internal auditors also are adjusting to new compliance duties, according to the survey. Globalization has resulted in increased revenue from emerging markets for many companies, so new regulatory, cultural, tax, and talent risks are emerging.

Thomson Reuters Messenger (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Internal audit will play a more prominent role in evaluating these risks, according to the survey report. Although slightly more than one-fourth (27%) of respondents are heavily involved in identifying, assessing, and monitoring emerging risks now, 54% expect to be heavily involved in the next two years.

The biggest primary risks that respondents said their organizations are tracking are:

Economic stability (54%).

Cybersecurity (52%).

Major shifts in technology (48%).

Strategic transactions in global locations (44%).

Data privacy regulations (39%).

Survey respondents said the skills most often found to be lacking in internal audit functions are:

Data analytics;

Business strategy;

Deep industry experience;

Risk management; and

Fraud prevention and detection.

“As corporate leaders demand a greater measure of strategy and insight from their internal audit functions, CAEs will need to move quickly to close competency gaps and ensure that they have the right people in the right place, at the right time.” Schwartz said. “If they fail to meet organizational expectations, they risk being left behind or consigned to more transactional compliance activities.”

Keeping Internal Auditors Up to the Challenge (forbes.com)

Internal Audit Has To STOP Focusing On Internal Controls (business2community.com)

Changement important dans la relation auditeur externe/interne | Financial Reporting Council (FRC) (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Useful Internal Auditing in 4 Easy Steps (isocertificationaustralia.com)

Thomson Reuters Develops Accelus Governance, Risk and Compliance Platform (risk-technology.typepad.com)

Top 10 des billets en gouvernance sur mon blogue | Novembre 2013

Voici une liste des billets en gouvernance les plus populaires publiés sur mon blogue au cours du mois de novembre 2013. Cette liste constitue, en quelque sorte, un sondage de l’intérêt manifesté par des dizaines de milliers de personnes sur différents thèmes de la gouvernance des sociétés.

On y retrouve des points de vue très bien étayés sur des sujets d’actualité tels que : des conseils pour une bonne préparation aux réunions du conseil, des guides de gouvernance à l’intention des OBNL, une documentation sur les fondements de la gouvernance, une présentation des principes de gouvernance universels, le pouls de l’audit interne, la gouvernance des institutions d’enseignement collégiaux, le conseil d’administration sans papier sécurisé.

En terme géographique, près du quart (25 %) des visiteurs sont d’origine française ou proviennent de dizaines de pays francophones, et 58 % sont d’origine canadienne. Ceux-ci trouvent leur voie sur le site principalement via LinkedIn (43 %), via les engins de recherche (43 %) ou via d’autres réseaux sociaux (14 %), tels que Facebook, Twitter ou Tumblr.

Vos commentaires sont toujours les bienvenus et ils sont grandement appréciés; je réponds toujours à ceux-ci. Bonne lecture !

Les dix (10) plus importantes activités pour une gouvernance efficace

Les grands enjeux de la gouvernance des institutions d’enseignement collégiaux

La référence en matière de gouvernance corporative | Les enseignements de Gilles Paquet

La dématérialisation du conseil d’administration | Une nécessité !

Cinq (5) principes simples et universels de saine gouvernance ?

Un document précieux à l’intention des C.A. d’OBNL (revisité)*

Guides de gouvernance à l’intention des OBNL : Questions et réponses

Mener ou suivre : Questions à l’intention des conseils d’administration d’OBNL | Deloitte

Comment bien se préparer à une réunion du conseil d’administration ? (revisité)

Le pouls de l’audit interne en 2013 | Rapport de l’Institut des auditeurs internes (IAI)

Vous vous préparez à occuper un poste d’administrateur d’une entreprise ? (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Le comité de gouvernance du C.A. | Élément clé d’une solide stratégie (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Comment motiver certains de vos administrateurs d’OBNL ? (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Le pouls de l’audit interne en 2013 | Rapport de l’Institut des auditeurs internes (IAI)

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un rapport de l’Institut des auditeurs internes (IAI), partagé par Denis Lefort, expert-conseil /Gouvernance, Audit interne, Contrôle, sur les résultats du premier sondage de l’année 2013 concernant l’Amérique du nord, portant sur le pouls de la profession de l’audit interne (Pulse of the profession).

La fonction de l’audit interne au sein des entreprises est de plus en plus importante. Ce document comporte une foule de tableaux et d’illustrations qui seront, selon moi, très précieux pour évaluer l’essor de la profession. Je présente ici l’introduction au rapport suivi du sommaire des résultats et de la méthodologie.

Bonne lecture.

Defining Our Role In a Changing Landscape | The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)

The IIA’s Audit Executive Center conducts the North American Pulse of the Profession Survey to assess the state of the internal audit profession. This survey looks at trends and emerging issues in the internal audit profession within the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean. Last year, the survey results indicated the strongest Outlook for internal audit resources seen since the 2008 economic downturn. Continuing this trend, the 2013 survey suggests that the vast majority of the 428 CAEs and others in audit management roles who responded to this recent Pulse survey expect that their staff and budget resources will increase or stay the same in 2014.

With resource levels stabilizing close to pre-recession levels, the focus for internal audit seems to have settled into more diversified audit coverage than would have been seen a few years ago. The survey results indicate that audit departments are expecting a greater focus on compliance risks and less emphasis on Sarbanes-Oxley. At the same time, limited coverage of strategic business risks suggests a misalignment with the priorities of executive management and audit committees. “Historically, internal audit has witnessed that stakeholder expectations are a moving target,” states IIA President and CEO Richard Chambers. “Even if we are aligned today, those expectations may change tomorrow.” Chambers goes on to say that “at the end of the day, stakeholders expect us to be risk-based, and if we are not aligned with their priorities, then I think there is a risk that we will fail to meet their expectations.”

This year, as in previous years, The IIA focused a portion of the survey on emerging issues that affect the practice of internal auditing. This survey introduced two focus areas:

– 2014 Requirements of the U.S. Affordable Care Act and anticipated risks.

– Preparedness for COSO 2013 Internal Control–Integrated Framework implementation.

Responses pertaining to the U.S. Affordable Care Act suggest that a potential expectation gap is emerging related to internal audit’s ability to help stakeholders understand their associated risks. In contrast, survey results regarding COSO 2013 implementation indicate that internal audit departments that are implementing the revised framework by December 2014 foresee an easy transition.

SURVEY RESULTS AT-A-GLANCE

The IIA Audit Executive Center’s 2013 North American Pulse of the Profession Survey of 428 North American internal

audit professionals yielded the following overarching results:

1. The outlook for internal audit resources remains strong with steady increases in budget and staff levels and fewer decreases in some areas than in previous years.

2. One area of misalignment with stakeholder priorities appears to be strategic business risk.

3. Compliance risks are predicted to elicit greater audit coverage in 2014, pushing ahead of competing risk areas.

SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS IN A NUTSHELL

The IIA Audit Executive Center’s 2013 North American Pulse of the Profession garnered responses from 428 CAEs and others in audit management roles within North American organizations, varying widely in type, size, and industry sector. Publicly traded organizations comprise the largest group of respondent organizations (38 percent). Privately held organizations and public sector entities also represent a significant portion of respondents — 27 percent and 23 percent, respectively. In addition, 14 percent of all respondents work in Fortune 500 companies.

The survey also shows a wide variation in staff size among respondent organizations, ranging from one person (11 percent) to more than 100 people (3 percent). The largest segment (38 percent) report staff sizes between two and five auditors. Participants represent more than 26 industries, with the highest representation from the financial services industry (22 percent). Other industries that participated at notable rates include insurance (8 percent), health services (8 percent), manufacturing (7 percent), and education (7 percent).

__________________________________

*The IIA’s Audit Executive Center is the essential resource to empower CAEs to be more successful. The Center’s suite of information, products, and services enables CAEs to respond to the unique challenges and emerging risks of the profession. For more information onthe Center, visit http://www.theiia.org/cae.

Redefining The Role Of Internal Audit: Part Two (business2community.com)

Redefining The Role Of Internal Audit: Avoiding Redundancy (business2community.com)

Risk Based Internal Audit Planning (learnsigma.co.uk)

The difference between internal audit and external audit, by a firm consulting (iareportg5.wordpress.com)

Getting from Continuous Auditing to Continuous Risk Assessment (mjsnook.co)

The Internal Audit Activity’s Role in Governance, Risk, and Control (IIA Certified Internal Auditor – Part 1) (examcertifytraining.wordpress.com)

La présidence du comité d’audit ?

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 Chair of the Audit Committee

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?

Is the Audit Committee Really the Secret Sauce for Cyber Security? (tripwire.com)

The responses to the questions raised at Audit Committee Meeting SCC from Mr Nigel Behan of UNITE. (unitesomersetcounty.wordpress.com)

UK wants Big Four to compete for audit work (fcpablog.com)

The difference between internal audit and external audit, by a firm consulting (iareportg5.wordpress.com)

Les besoins d’une saine gouvernance sont universels !

Voici un court article publié par Monish Chatrath sur le site de moneycontrol.com qui présente une perspective équilibrée des pratiques de gouvernance à l’échelle internationale. C’est un texte qui décrit clairement les besoins d’une saine gouvernance et qui montre comment celle-ci peut s’appliquer dans des contextes culturels différents.

La nécessité d’une bonne gouvernance est universelle et sa réalisation est étroitement liée à la compétitivité des organisations. J’ai choisi de vous livrer de larges extraits de cet article. Bonne lecture.

Good governance is characterised by a firm commitment and adoption of ethical practices by an organisation across its entire value chain, in all of its dealings with a wide group of stakeholders, encompassing employees, customers, vendors, regulators and shareholders (including minority shareholders). To achieve this, certain checks and practices need to be whole-heartedly embraced. Trust and integrity play an essential role in economic life and for the sake of future prosperity, boards and management need to ensure that these attributes are adequately recognised.

The need for good corporate governance

The subject of corporate governance leapt to limelight from relative obscurity after a string of collapses of high profile companies at the start of this century, when events at a Houston-based energy giant and at a global telecom behemoth in Mississippi, shocked the business world with both the scale and age of their unethical and illegal operations. Worse, they seemed to indicate only the tip of a dangerous iceberg. While corporate practices in the USA came under the scanner, it appeared that the problem was far more widespread.

Relatively similar issues at a large and reputed food group in Europe, at a multinational newspaper group in Canada and at an Indian technology major, revealed significant and deep-rooted problems, which inexplicably creep in at times and places where they are least expected. Subsequently, the need for the identification and adoption of good tenets for governance have been reinforced from time to time and efforts to this end have gathered further momentum with every new disclosure of a corporate scandal.

The board has a key role in setting the ethical tone of a company. High ethical standards are in the long term interests of the company as a means to make it credible and trustworthy, not only in day-to-day operations but also with respect to longer term commitments. While codes of conduct and whistle blower policies are important, what is more important is the manner in which they are communicated and practiced. In this context, it is vital for board members and senior management to lead by example. Similarly, the concept of having independent directors is sound in theory, but more important is the process underlying the selection of independent directors. The selection process itself need to be rigorous, transparent, objective and aligned with the organisation’s needs.

Although, having tight financial controls is essential for market confidence, cultural and operational risks can just as effectively damage a business if left unchecked. This is where we get to see many divergent views across the globe; the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) in USA insists on management and auditor assertion on the financial control environment, whereas the combined code of corporate governance in the UK (the UK Code) maintains a focus on the wider control environment, but without the requirement for positive assertion. The French have introduced the Loi de Sécurité Financière (LSF) which moves towards directors acknowledging their responsibility for having maintained a strong control environment. Ireland and Germany, among others, also have similar frameworks. In India, listed companies are required to comply with the revised corporate governance requirements under Clause 49, which envisages mandatory risk assessments, certification of financial controls by Chief Executive officers (CEOs) and Chief Financial officers (CFOs) and a larger role for independent directors.

To sum up, a fair and effective corporate governance framework must evolve in the light of changing circumstances of business over time and the framework of the company should be tailored accordingly to deal with those circumstances. A poorly conceived governance system on the other hand, can wreak havoc on an economy by misallocating resources or failing to check opportunistic behaviour. The question that often arises is whether corporate governance operates the same way in every economy. It may be argued that cross-national patterns of corporate governance are either converging or will converge on either the Anglo-Saxon shareholder-centered model found in the USA and the UK, or a hybrid between the shareholder and stakeholder models typically found in Japan and Germany. The fact remains that, irrespective of the model adopted, the corporate governance and competitive strategy of organizations are inextricably interrelated.

L’évolution de la « Hawkamah » (Gouvernance en arabe) dans les pays en développement (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Changement important dans la relation auditeur externe/interne | Financial Reporting Council (FRC) (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Communications entre le C.A et les actionnaires | Prise de position de Richard Leblanc (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

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

Les dix (10) plus importantes activités pour une gouvernance efficace

To ensure that your board is continually reviewing and enhancing its governance processes, this checklist will provide a good starting point.

Top Ten Steps to Improving Corporate Governance :

1.      Recognise that good governance is not just about compliance

Boards need to balance conformance (i.e. compliance with legislation, regulation and codes of practice) with performance aspects of the board’s work (i.e. improving the performance of the organisation through strategy formulation and policy making). As a part of this process, a board needs to elaborate its position and understanding of the major functions it performs as opposed to those performed by management. These specifics will vary from board to board. Knowing the role of the board and who does what in relation to governance goes a long way towards maintaining a good relationship between the board and management.

2.      Clarify the board’s role in strategy

It is generally accepted today that the board has a significant role to play in the formulation and adoption of the organisation’s strategic direction. The extent of the board’s contribution to strategy will range from approval at one end to development at the other. Each board must determine what role is appropriate for it to undertake and clarify this understanding with management.

3.      Monitor organisational performance

Monitoring organisational performance is an essential board function and ensuring legal compliance is a major aspect of the board’s monitoring role. It ensures that corporate decision making is consistent with the strategy of the organisation and with owners’ expectations. This is best done by identifying the organisation’s key performance drivers and establishing appropriate measures for determining success. As a board, the directors should establish an agreed format for the reports they monitor to ensure that all matters that should be reported are in fact reported.

4.      Understand that the board employs the CEO

In most cases, one of the major functions of the board is to appoint, review, work through, and replace (when necessary), the CEO. The board/CEO relationship is crucial to effective corporate governance because it is the link between the board’s role in determining the organisation’s strategic direction and management’s role in achieving corporate objectives.

5.      Recognise that the governance of risk is a board responsibility

Establishing a sound system of risk oversight and management and internal control is another fundamental role of the board. Effective risk management supports better decision making because it develops a deeper insight into the risk-reward trade-offs that all organisations face.

6.      Ensure the directors have the information they need

Better information means better decisions. Regular board papers will provide directors with information that the CEO or management team has decided they need. But directors do not all have the same informational requirements, since they differ in their knowledge, skills, and experience. Briefings, presentations, site visits, individual director development programs, and so on can all provide directors with additional information. Above all, directors need to be able to find answers to the questions they have, so an access to independent professional advice policy is recommended.

7.      Build and maintain an effective governance infrastructure

Since the board is ultimately responsible for all the actions and decisions of an organisation, it will need to have in place specific policies to guide organisational behaviour. To ensure that the line of responsibility between board and management is clearly delineated, it is particularly important for the board to develop policies in relation to delegations. Also, under this topic are processes and procedures. Poor internal processes and procedures can lead to inadequate access to information, poor communication and uninformed decision making, resulting in a high level of dissatisfaction among directors. Enhancements to board meeting processes, meeting agendas, board papers and the board’s committee structure can often make the difference between a mediocre board and a high performing board.

8.      Appoint a competent chairperson

Research has shown that board structure and formal governance regulations are less important in preventing governance breaches and corporate wrongdoing than the culture and trust created by the chairperson. As the “leader” of the board, the chairperson should demonstrate strong and acknowledged leadership ability, the ability to establish a sound relationship with the CEO, and have the capacity to conduct meetings and lead group decision-making processes.

9.      Build a skills-based board

What is important for a board is that it has a good understanding of what skills it has and those skills it requires. Where possible, a board should seek to ensure that its members represent an appropriate balance between directors with experience and knowledge of the organisation and directors with specialist expertise or fresh perspective. Directors should also be considered on the additional qualities they possess, their “behavioural competencies”, as these qualities will influence the relationships around the boardroom table, between the board and management, and between directors and key stakeholders.

10.     Evaluate board and director performance and pursue opportunities for improvement

Boards must be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses, if they are to govern effectively. Board effectiveness can only be gauged if the board regularly assesses its own performance and that of individual directors. Improvements to come from a board and director evaluation can include areas as diverse as board processes, director skills, competencies and motivation, or even boardroom relationships. It is critical that any agreed actions that come out of an evaluation are implemented and monitored. Boards should consider addressing weaknesses uncovered in board evaluations through director development programs and enhancing their governance processes.

See on www.effectivegovernance.com.au

Mener ou suivre : Questions à l’intention des conseils d’administration d’OBNL | Deloitte

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.

Voici une introduction au document en question. Cette publication, à l’intention des administrateurs d’OBNL, est complémentaire au document Il est temps de tirer parti de la nouvelle réalité du marché | Deloitte, partagé sur ce blogue le 29 octobre. Bonne lecture.

Mener ou suivre : Questions à l’intention des conseils d’administration d’OBNL

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.

Comment motiver certains de vos administrateurs d’OBNL ? (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Un argumentaire en faveur du choix d’administrateurs externes au C.A.* (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Le cas d’un nouveau président du conseil d’administration (PCA) d’une société d’État

Voici un cas qui intéressera sûrement tous les membres de conseils d’administration de sociétés d’État. Même si le cas en gouvernance origine du site australien de Julie Garland McLellan, je crois que celui-ci s’applique très bien à la situation des sociétés d’État québécoises.

Voici donc un cas original tiré d’une situation vécue dans une entreprise d’État. Comment un président du conseil (PCA – Chairman) et son conseil peuvent-ils arriver à gérer une situation critique créée par ses prédécesseurs, une situation qui a le potentiel de nuire à l’organisation et de discréditer le conseil et le gouvernement.

Qu’en pensez-vous ? Que feriez-vous à la place de Brian pour faire évoluer le conseil ?

Ce cas a été analysé par trois experts de la gouvernance (Voir les avis des experts dans le texte ci-dessous). Quelle analyse vous semble la plus appropriée dans notre contexte ?

Le cas du nouveau président du conseil d’administration (PCA) d’une société d’État

Brian is chairman of a government owned company. Succession has been ‘actively managed’ with directors rotating on and off the board. This has given access to new skills including marketing and modern media but has resulted in a board with relatively little corporate history. Brian is the longest serving member and has only been on the board for five years.

Walmart Chairman of the Board Discusses Making a Difference (Photo credit: Walmart Corporate)

Six years ago the company terminated the employment of the then CFO due to allegations of improper accounting which had resulted in revalued assets and a large profit being declared in the prior year triggering payment of bonuses to the then CFO and CEO.
The former CEO left shortly after receiving the bonus. The replacement CEO decided to investigate the accounting treatment. The investigation was conducted by the outsourced internal audit firm and concluded that the accounting treatment did not meet guidelines or even generally accepted accounting standards. The statutory auditors agreed. The asset revaluations were subsequently reversed which led to a large loss, no dividends or tax equivalent payments that year, and great embarrassment.

The former CFO was terminated and the matter referred to the police as a possible fraud. A new CFO was appointed. She is a pleasant and efficient person whom the board like and respect. She is considered a potential successor to the current CEO. The police decided not to pursue the fraud allegations as they believed these lacked sufficient evidence. The former CFO is suing for wrongful dismissal, the lawyers believe he may win, and the current CFO is worried because the union is calling for the former CFO to be reinstated.

The board is looking to Brian, who also chairs the remuneration committee, for guidance on what to do. The current CEO has offered his resignation but nobody wants to accept it. How can Brian help the board to move forward ?

Six raisons qui militent en faveur du choix d’administrateurs externes au C.A. (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Particularités de la présidence d’un conseil d’OBNL | Quelques conseils

Voici quelques conseils très utiles aux personnes qui sont appelées à présider des conseils d’administration d’OBNL. Souvent, ces responsabilités sont confiées à des collègues populaires, jugés compétents dans les relations humaines…

C’est bien; c’est un bon début … mais il y a plus dans la job d’un président de conseil si l’on veut réaliser les objectifs de l’organisation. L’auteur nous fait part de plusieurs autres éléments importants à considérer dans la conduite des réunions d’une organisation à but non lucratif.

Notez que ces conseils sont aussi valables pour d’autres types de sociétés mais, Eugene Fram, l’auteur du blogue, est un expert de la gouvernance des OBNL, et ses suggestions s’appliquent très bien aux particularités de ce genre d’organisation.

Bonne lecture. Vos commentaires sont appréciés. Que pensez-vous d’un huis clos à la fin de chaque réunion ?

The Bottom Line: “Great meetings “are hard to come by. There are almost always moments of frustration and/or apparent progress. It is up to the chair to do a realistic post-mortem after each, recognizing what “works” with his/her constituents to move the organization forward. Some of the above suggestions can help produce tangible impacts that will assuredly merit heart-felt kudos from his/her fellow volunteers.

Chairing Nonprofit Boards or Committees | Beware of Accolades !

“Great Meeting!” That’s the pro forma exit line often delivered by nonprofit volunteers to the chair when the meeting is over. The meeting may or may not have been productive; the leader may or may not have been stellar. But it’s in the volunteer’s DNA to toss a parting compliment to the chair, also a volunteer. Here are my suggestions for conducting a meeting that will have at least a chance of earning the accolades.

Reporting on Operations: Keep this section to a minimum. Attach a list of routine, non-financial items to the agenda and make sure it reaches directors a week before the meeting. A Consent Agenda can be used for routine legal items or issues that need to be noted in the minutes. When directors attempt to micromanage operational issues,(e.g. try to suggest ad copy), the chair needs to take charge and redirect the discussion, perhaps by encouraging the director who is talking to complete the discussion off-line with the CEO .

Strategic/Policy Topics: These topics should always be central to the agenda, even if they are only updates on the work of board-staff committees. Completed committee reports need to be allotted substantial sections of the agenda, especially if they are coming up for a final vote.

Avoid Information Dumps: Examples: A CEO who simply reads the details of accreditation guidelines that nobody will remember. An enthusiastic staff member who presents a report without having reviewed it with the CEO to make certain he/she stays within the allotted time. A chair needs to diplomatically interrupt a director unproductively consuming meeting time to give an ad hoc speech. Many of these problems can be avoided if the CEO and chair anticipated them and have a redirection strategy in place.

Short Meeting (Photo credit: Accretion Disc)

Focus On Discussing Outcomes & Impacts: Also in the nonprofit environment there is a tendency to have meetings default to discussions of processes instead of outcomes and impacts. Discussions of processes are more interesting and more tangible. Outcomes and impacts are more future oriented. The chair needs to be alert to this default and ready to handle it.

Solving Problems: After every meeting the CEO and chair need to define what organizational problems have been put to rest as a result of the meeting. However, occasionally a meeting might get out of hand without any problems being solved. Records need to be kept to be certain this doesn’t become a trend. If it does, the issues must be identifies.

An Offline Suggestion: Most nonprofit volunteer directors only see each other occasionally. At board and committee meetings, some chairs take 10 minutes at the end of the meeting to ask each one to comment what is going on in their personal or professional lives. Those who use the technique report it helps with team collegiality.

Related articles

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles récents sur l’audit interne :

Partagez (share) ce post

Related articles

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles récents sur l’audit interne :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés :

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés :

Partagez (share) ce post

Table des matières du document de mise à jour

Partagez (share) ce post

Rapport de Davies sur la gouvernance 2013

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles récents sur l’audit interne :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés au sujet :

Partagez (share) ce post

Quelques articles reliés au sujet :

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Related articles

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés au rôle des présidents de conseils administrateurs :

The Man Inside « The Board » (docireport.org)

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post