Catégorie : Composition des Conseils

Les dangers du micro-management !


Le micro-management est certainement un danger qui guette beaucoup d’administrateurs siégeant sur des conseils d’administration, surtout sur des CA d’OBNL.

Le court article publié par Eugene Fram sur son blogue Nonprofit Management montre qu’il y certaines situations de Start-Up qui nécessitent une implication des administrateurs dans la gestion de leur organisation; mais, il n’est pas rare que ce comportement devienne une très mauvaise habitude à plus long terme*.

L’auteur présente les dangers reliés aux comportements des administrateurs qui investissent inconsidérément les rôles de gestionnaires.

Les administrateurs doivent toujours se rappeler qu’ils ont un devoir de fiduciaire envers les actionnaires ou les membres d’une OBNL et qu’ils peuvent difficilement exercer leurs responsabilités s’ils effectuent des tâches de nature managériale.

Cette façon de faire détruit l’initiative des gestionnaires et sape leurs sens des responsabilités.

Bonne lecture !

  The Dangers of Board Micromanagement

Micromanaging is a method of management in which an individual closely observes or controls the work of an employee. In comparison to simply giving general direction, the micromanager monitors and evaluates every stage in a process, from beginning to end. This behavior negatively affects efficiency, creativity, trust, communication, problem-solving, and the company’s ability to reach its goals.P1030954

The typical micromanager spends their time directing employees rather than empowering them. They are often very insecure. They spend more time with the details of business operations instead of planning the company’s short-term and long-term growth strategies. The fact of the matter is, time DOES equal money. When the designated leader of an organization is wasting time (and therefore money) on overseeing projects instead of focusing on specific growth opportunities, it’s time to reevaluate a few things.

The Need for a Micromanaging Board

Board micromanagement is an appropriate approach when either a nonprofit or for-profit is in a start-up stage. Financial and human resources are modest, and the directors often assume some responsibilities normally executed by compensated staff. The chief executive often has managerial responsibilities as well as a list of low-level operational duties. As extreme examples, I have even seen CEOs install office furniture or install floor tiles.

Long Term Implications

Prolonging these types of activities much after they are needed can imbed micromanagement in the DNA of the organization’s decision-making. Some directors may even obtain ego gratification from continual micromanaging. It can provide more immediate gratifications not found with policy or strategy development. If their mandates fail, they can always quietly blame management for poor implementations. Eventually these failures have an impact on the organization, either by stunting development or causing it to fail. Following are some of the behavioral patterns that become part of the decision-making environment:

Less competent managers are attracted to executive positions – There is a tendency to promote people with good operational records work into key management positions. They may have even taken university courses in management or social dynamics but they fail to realistically implement what they have learned into the dynamics of the real world problems.

Delegating Decisions Upward – Knowing that even small decisions will need to have board review, if not approval, the organization takes no pride in taking initiative, being creative and employing critical thinking. There is also a tendency to shirk responsibility.

More Difficult Recruitment — When the board comes to the conclusion it needs more talented managers, the directors may have trouble understanding why talented recruits reject their offers. Sometimes a talented senior manger may take a position after negotiating an understanding that the micromanaging board will change or modify the way it operates. However changing such an imbedded culture can be difficult and sometimes impossible, if a founder has established a micromanagement environment for the board.

Founders of both nonprofit and for-profit organizations can generate micromanaging boards that last for years beyond their tenures. Succeeding boards can be composed of directors who follow the founders’ management styles and are not capable of excising the unhealthy DNA surging through the organization.

Board micromanagement in either nonprofit or business organizations, when continued beyond a start-up stage, can be can be viewed as an incipient disease. It, at any point, can cause a “heart attack” in the organization.

_______________________________________________________

*Voir aussi Micromanagers: Flushing Companies Down the Toilet, One Detail at a Time

 

Étude du Conference Board sur les récentes interventions des actionnaires activistes


Comme vous le savez, je suis désireux d’être au fait des derniers développements eu égard aux interventions des actionnaires activistes car je pense que ce mouvement peut avoir des conséquences positives sur la gouvernance des sociétés, même si le management a tendance à se défendre âprement contre les « intrusions des actionnaires activistes et opportunistes »

L’article ci-dessous, paru sur le site du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, nous fait part d’une récente étude du Conference Board* sur l’évolution du phénomène de l’activisme aux É.U.

L’étude en question, Proxy Voting Analytics (2010-2014), montre que le mouvement, loin de s’essouffler, a continué d’avoir un impact significatif sur les relations entre les actionnaires et les dirigeants des grandes entreprises américaines.

Voici donc un résumé des faits saillants de cette étude. Bonne lecture !

The Recent Evolution of Shareholder Activism

Proxy Voting Analytics (2010-2014), a report recently released by The Conference Board in collaboration with FactSet, reviews the last five years of shareholder activism and proxy voting at Russell 3000 and S&P 500 companies.

Data analyzed in the report includes:

  1. Shareholder activism, including proxy fights, exempt solicitations, and other public agitations for change.
  2. Most frequent activist funds and their tactics.
  3. Volume, sponsors, and subjects of shareholder proposals.IMG00571-20100828-2241
  4. Voted, omitted, and withdrawn shareholder proposals.
  5. Voting results of shareholder proposals.
  6. Shareholder proposals on executive compensation.
  7. Shareholder proposals on corporate governance.
  8. Shareholder proposals on social and environmental policy.
  9. Volume and subjects of management proposals.
  10. Failed say-on-pay proposals among Russell 3000 companies.
  11. Say-on-pay proposals that received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast.

Additional insights (including volume by index, industry, and sponsor, most frequent sponsors, and support levels) are offered with respect to key issues from the last few proxy seasons, including: majority voting; board declassification; supermajority vote requirements; independent board chairmen; proxy access; sustainability reporting; political issues; election of dissident’s director nominee.

The report pays special attention to trends and developments that have emerged in the last few months. In fact, what started as an unremarkable proxy voting season has blossomed into a series of developments that may influence annual general meetings for years to come.

There is a clear indication that activist investors are turning their attention to new issues. For example, in the Russell 3000, five investor-sponsored proposals restricting golden parachutes received the support of a majority of shareholders. While the volume remains low, it is the highest ever recorded on this topic and it signals that voting on executive compensation issues other than say on pay can still find its way to general meetings of shareholders. Political spending and lobbying activities, a topic virtually absent from voting ballots until a few years ago, became the most frequently submitted shareholder proposal type of 2014, with 86 voted proposals and five receiving more than 40 percent of votes cast (compared to only one in 2013). Finally, support for resolutions on proxy access reached a tipping point in the first six months of the year, with five proposals approved and four receiving more than 40 percent of votes cast in favor.

The advisory vote on executive compensation was a game changer for corporate/investor relations and, in 2014, more than ever before, shareholders have been pursuing opportunities to engage with senior management and be heard ahead of a shareholder meeting. This trend was reflected in the rate of withdrawals of shareholder proposals, which doubled from a few years ago as companies chose to preempt a vote on certain investor requests by voluntarily implementing their own reforms. It was not all a product of engagement, however, and guidelines on board responsiveness from proxy advisory firm ISS also drove the surge of management proposals on issues previously raised by activists.

Increased dialogue with senior executives and board members as well as the progress made by many large companies in the adoption of baseline corporate governance practices prompted large institutional investors to reconsider their role as agents of corporate change. For example, while some public pension funds such as the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) cut back significantly on their submissions in 2014, others such as the New York City Employees’ Retirement Systems remained prolific proponents and galvanized around proxy access requests. Similarly, the popularity of social and environmental policy issues observed this year is in part explained by the larger number of proposals filed by labor-affiliated investment funds, which, before the introduction of mandatory say on pay, had always concentrated on executive compensation issues. Despite the traditional focus of this type of fund on industrial sectors, in 2014, for the first time, more than 20 percent of the 86 proposals submitted by labor unions were directed at companies in the finance industry.

Social media and other new technologies allow a broad outreach that was unimaginable only a few years ago, and activists are perfecting their use. This year, a growing number of activist investors, especially hedge funds, have agitated for change without even filing a shareholder proposal, let alone waging a proxy fight. Despite the increase in activism campaign announcements, there was a sensible decline in the number of campaigns related to shareholder meetings held in the first six months of 2014. This decline suggests that, rather than urge other shareholders to oppose a director election or vote for a certain resolution, these activism campaign announcements now serve to publicize the investor’s view of the business strategy or organizational performance. It is a first step that may lead to the future filing of a proposal or the solicitation of proxies but that may also prove sufficient to persuade the company to seek dialogue and reach a compromise.

The following are the major findings of the report:

Although activism campaign announcements in the Russell 3000 were up in 2014, the number of campaigns related to a shareholder meeting declined, as some hedge funds chose to agitate for change without even filing a shareholder proposal.

 

Observations made in 2013 that hedge funds were starting to set their sights on larger companies appear disputed by numbers for 2014, when a sharp decline in activism campaign volume was recorded among S&P 500 companies.

 

Proxy contests were the only type of activist campaign related to a shareholder vote to increase among Russell 3000 companies in 2014, with a concentration in the retail trade and finance industries, and dissidents reported their highest success rates in years.

 

Engagement between corporations and investors has not curbed the most hostile forms of activism, as the volume of proposals to elect a dissident’s nominee remains fairly high.

 

Shareholder proposal volume was slightly lower this year, with a sharper decline among larger companies as investors focus on new topics and broaden their targets.

 

Excess cash on US companies’ balance sheets fueled the growth of the activist hedge fund industry, and the number of resolutions sponsored by hedge funds surpassed the record levels of 2008.

 

The 2014 proxy season marked another sharp year-over-year decline in the number of proposals submitted by multiemployer investment funds affiliated with labor unions, as those investors showed new interests, especially in social and environmental policy issues.

 

Proposals on corporate governance, once a stronghold for pension funds, were sharply reduced as more companies introduced engagement policies with large investors.

 

Shareholder resolutions on social and environmental policy rose to unprecedented levels, while some institutional investors dropped governance issues that were a staple of their past activity but never garnered widespread support.

 

The rate of withdrawals of shareholder proposals doubled from a few years ago as companies preempted some of the issues by voluntarily implementing their own reforms.

 

As large groups of institutional investors reduced their 14a-8 filings or shifted their attention to new and less popular topics, the percentage of voted proposals winning the support of a majority of shareholders reached a new low.

 

Proposals on board declassification and majority voting have become a sure bet for labor unions and public pension funds, as they are widely recognized as a baseline in corporate governance.

 

A surge in requests from corporate gadflies made the separation of CEO and chairman roles the top shareholder proposal topic by volume, but the institutional investment community remains skeptical of a one-size-fits-all approach to board leadership.

 

For the first time in the same proxy season, five investor-sponsored proposals restricting golden parachutes received majority support, signaling that voting on executive compensation issues other than say on pay may still find its way to the AGM.

 

 hareholder proposals on political spending and lobbying activities skyrocketed this year, with five receiving more than 40 percent of votes cast (compared to only one in 2013).

 

Support for shareholder proposals on proxy access rights reached a tipping point in 2014, with five proposals approved and four others receiving the support of more than 40 percent of votes cast, and a handful of companies submitted board-sponsored proposals.

 

Say-on-pay analysis confirms a significant turnover in failed votes, with several companies losing the confidence of their shareholders this year after winning the vote by a wide margin in 2013.

__________________________________________________

*Matteo Tonello is vice president at The Conference Board. This post relates to a report released jointly by The Conference Board and FactSet, authored by Dr. Tonello and Melissa Aguilar of The Conference Board. The Executive Summary is available here (the document is free but registration is required).

Débat sur la contribution des actionnaires activistes au sein des conseils d’administration


Voyez le panel de discussion sur les aspects pratiques liés aux activités des actionnaires activistes, diffusé par la National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD).

Cette vidéo montre comment les activistes opèrent sur les marchés mais aussi au sein des conseils d’administration. C’est une présentation vraiment très utile pour mieux saisir les différentes catégories d’activistes ainsi que les motivations qui les animent.

Excellente discussion sur la montée de l’activisme. À visionner !

Activist Shareholders in the Boardroom

Activism is on the rise. When and how can activist shareholders in the boardroom be a force for positive change? Directors need to be prepared.  Janet Clark, , , and Andrew Shapiro discuss the issues around strategy and corporate governance at an NACD board leadership conference.NACDlogo

The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) is certainly a recognized authority, when it comes to discussing and establishing leading boardroom practices in the United States.

Informed by more than 35 years of experience, NACD delivers insights and resources that more than 14,000 corporate director members from the public, private and non-profit sectors rely upon to make sound strategic decisions and confidently confront complex business challenges.

Proposition pour un changement significatif dans la gouvernance des sociétés | Richard Leblanc


Voici un article de Richard Leblanc, avocat, expert-conseil en gouvernance et professeur-chercheur, publié récemment dans le HuffPost Business Canada, qui alimentera les discussions portant sur les changements requis en gouvernance au Canada.

L’auteur présente un changement réglementaire qui permettrait à des actionnaires d’avoir accès à la circulaire d’information pour fins de votation aux assemblées annuelles. Présentement, les actionnaires n’ont pas la possibilité de faire inscrire des candidatures d’administrateurs dans la circulaire de la direction; cela est du ressort du conseil d’administration qui fait des propositions de candidatures basées sur les recommandations d’un comité de gouvernance formé de membres du C.A.

Cette façon de fonctionner, selon Richard Leblanc, a pour résultat de bloquer la nomination de nouveaux administrateurs issus de la base actionnariale, ouvrant ainsi la voie à de grandes batailles d’opinions lorsque les actionnaires-investisseurs activistes exigent des changements à la gouvernance des sociétés.

La proposition de Richard Leblanc permettrait l’inclusion de candidatures d’actionnaires dans le prospectus de sollicitation à certaines conditions :

(1)   L’actionnaire ou le groupe d’actionnaires doit posséder un minimum d’actions dans l’entreprise (disons environ 3 %);

(2)  Les actions doivent avoir été acquises depuis une certaine période de temps (disons trois ans);

(3)  Les actionnaires peuvent soumettre annuellement des candidatures d’administrateurs jusqu’à un maximum de 25 % des administrateurs proposés dans la circulaire (dans le cas d’une élection non contestée, c’est-à-dire dans le cas où un changement de contrôle n’est pas envisagé).

L’auteur est très conscient que le management des entreprises est susceptible de résister à un tel changement car il ne veut pas de surprises (le management veut conserver son pouvoir d’influence dans le processus …). De plus, le C.A. veut conserver ses prérogatives de choisir ses pairs !

Que pensez-vous de cette approche ? En quoi celle-ci peut-elle améliorer la gouvernance ? Les actionnaires minoritaires auront-ils un rôle significativement plus crucial à jouer ? Est-ce le bon moyen pour susciter une plus grande participation des actionnaires ?

L’argumentation pour les changements proposés est développée dans l’article de Richard Leblanc présenté ci-dessous.

Bonne lecture ! Je souhaite avoir votre opinion sur cette approche, à première vue, favorable aux actionnaires.

The Corporate Governance Game Changer That Needs to Come to Canada

I teach my students and counsel board clients that shareholders elect directors; directors appoint managers; directors are accountable to shareholders; and managers are accountable to directors. This is largely theoretical.

Here is the reality: Shareholders: (i) cannot select directors; (ii) cannot communicate with directors; and (iii) cannot remove directors, by law, without great cost and difficulty. Therefore, directors are largely homogenous groups who are selected by themselves, or, worse yet, management.

Addressing the foregoing is the one piece of reform that will change corporate governance and performance for the better. The rest is, as they say, window dressing.

I have encouraged institutional investors and regulators to consider advocating what is known as « proxy access. » This means that a shareholder, or a group of shareholders, who (i) own a modest, minimum threshold of shares (say 3 per cent, although the percentage could be higher or lower, or floating, depending on the size of the company); (ii) for a period of time (say three years, although the time period could be shorter); (iii) can select up to 25 per cent of proposed directors, of the total board size, in an uncontested election (meaning a change of control is not desired by the shareholders) in a given year.P1030704

When shareholders « select » their nominees for the board, these directors would be alongside, in the management proxy circular, in alphabetical order, with profile parity (short bios and areas of competency), the management slate of directors. Management would be obliged to include shareholder-nominated directors, at a cost to the company, not shareholders, if the above ownership and time requirements are met. There would be no costly proxy battles or dissident slates. There would be no undue influence by management to marginalize shareholder-nominated directors within or outside of the proxy. Rules of the road will be set.

Then, shareholders get to decide, as they should, on the best directors from among the management-proposed and the shareholder-proposed directors. Ideally, the selection should be as blind or neutral as possible. The focus should be solely on the qualifications, competencies and track record of the proposed directors for election at that company. May the best directors win, as should be the case in any election, versus a slate of management-nominated directors, which is the case now. Under this new regime, there will be winners and losers. The practical effect may be that legacy or unqualified directors may withdraw from this scrutiny, as Canadian Pacific directors did at the time of shareholder Pershing Square’s involvement. This is not an undesired outcome and creates a market for the most qualified directors to rise to the top.

When proxy access was proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the U.S., management and lawyers who work for management used shareholder money to fight proxy access proposed under Dodd Frank, and won in the U.S. Court of Appeals, on the basis of an inadequate cost benefit analysis. Canadian investors and regulators should learn from this experience. Proxy access now is left to companies on a one-off basis, rather than being system wide. Meaningful proxy access has only occurred at a small number of companies as a result. The SEC should revisit proxy access. Industry Canada is currently looking at implementing proxy access at the 5 per cent level for all federally incorporated companies.

Opponents to proxy access argue that shareholders selecting directors will propose special purpose directors or directors who lack the background or experience. The evidence is the opposite. Shareholders are better at proposing directors who have the shareholder track record and industry expertise that the current board lacks. Recall Canadian Pacific, where not a single director possessed rail experience prior to shareholder involvement. There are other examples at Hess, Office Depot, Darden, Bob Evans, Abercrombie and Occidental Petroleum (see Field Experience Helps Win Board Seats), where shareholder-advocated directors were either better than incumbent ones, or caused the renewal of management-advocated ones. A director qualification dispute is welcome and will focus the lens on competencies of directors, including industry expertise, which is a good thing. Ann C. Mule and Charles Elson report in « Directors and Boards » that « One study concludes that more powerful CEOs tend to avoid independent expert directors. »

Herein lies the real resistance to proxy access: Management does not want it, and, the record shows, will fight vigorously to resist it. Management-retained advocates hired to oppose proxy access should disclose whom their client is. Directors however, when deciding to support proxy access, or not, should not be beholden to management, nor their advisors, nor act out of self-interest in entrenching themselves, but should be guided only by the best interests of the company, including its shareholders.

There is evidence that the market values strong proxy access positively, leading to an increase in shareholder wealth. If a director possesses the independence of mind, and the competency and skills to serve on the board, they should welcome proxy access. It will mean that the under performing directors on the board will be ferreted out, and current directors can avoid this uncomfortable task. Shareholders and the new competitive market for corporate directors will do it for them.

Suggestions d’ordre pratique pour l’adoption de comportements appropriés de la part des administrateurs


Doug Raymond, associé de la firme Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP et chroniqueur pour la revue Directors & Boards, nous présente une bonne revue des comportements à adopter comme membre d’un conseil d’administration.

Même si l’article revient sur des suggestions que vous connaissez bien, j’ai pensé vous faire partager les avis d’ordre pratique de l’auteur.

Bonne lecture !

Practical Dos and Don’ts for Directors

 

It isn’t exactly a “Top 10 list,” but I thought a listing of practical advice might be welcome to readers. So, recognizing that no list is perfect or exhaustive:

  1. Understand the company and its business—Directors should take the time to learn about the company’s business and the company’s industry, including its significant competitors.
  2. Do your homework—Directors should read and understand the board packet before the meeting; call if you have questions about the materials. The meeting should be used to discuss and make decisions rather than to educate directors who did not do their homework.IMG_00002057
  3. Keep the core strategy in mind—Once a strategic plan is formulated, further decisions should be evaluated by referring back to that plan. If the plan is broken or needs to be updated, be willing to suggest changing it.
  4. Directors plan and guide; management does—Directors should not confuse formulating and overseeing strategy with implementing it, which is done by management. Don’t overly defer to management in strategic matters in the planning stages, but don’t micromanage the tactics.
  5. Be constructive—Each director should be engaged at each meeting and participate in discussions without monopolizing them. Each member of the board has been chosen for his or her skills and potential to add value; for this to happen each director must be treated with courtesy, and board discussions must be open, thorough and deliberative.
  6. During board meetings, leave your iPhone in your briefcase—The board’s time is limited; don’t try to multitask during board meetings. Instead, directors should remain focused on the matters under discussion in order to appropriately discharge their duties.
  7. Don’t disappear after meetings—The job of being a director doesn’t end with the meeting. Feel free to contact your fellow directors, and, within reason, management, to stay involved with the company between meetings.
  8. Be social—Don’t skip board and management dinners and other social functions; these events help to form board culture and help the board function more effectively, particularly during hard times.
  9. Avoid conflicts of interest—Company business should never be influenced, or appear to be influenced, by personal interests; directors should avoid any implication of creating a conflict of interest, taking a company opportunity, or improperly using company knowledge or assets.
  10. No surprises—Directors should be forthcoming; if any circumstance might appear to compromise a board member or create a conflict, directors should discuss the circumstances with the board; often a mechanism to resolve or cleanse the situation will be available. Directors should also share whatever they know about issues being considered by the board.
  11. Follow the ‘elevator rule’—Much of the information that directors receive is non-public and belongs to the company or its business partners. Directors must carefully protect this information, discussing it only with people who need to know it and avoiding inappropriate discussions, including on mobile phones, and in public places such as airplanes, restaurants and elevators.
  12. No short-term trading—Directors should be long-term investors, not short-term traders. While directors are often required to own stock in the companies they serve, these holdings should be passive, absent extraordinary circumstances.
  13. Gifts—Gifts are a normal part of human interaction; however, no gift of meaningful value should ever be accepted or provided by a director, and no gift of any nature should be accepted if it might obligate, or appear to obligate, the company or any director.
  14. You are not the press secretary—Outside the boardroom, do not speak on behalf of the company unless specifically authorized to do so; directors should avoid making statements that might be perceived as company statements, even if not so intended.

The points discussed above are practical points that can contribute to being a more effective director. Of course, good directors must also have a working knowledge of the relevant legal rules, including applicable laws and company policies; standards for fiduciary duties, including those of care and loyalty; and insider trading rules, but regular readers of Directors & Boards already know that.

Bulletin du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) | Octobre 2014


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, le Bulletin du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) du mois d’octobre 2014.

Le programme de certification universitaire en gouvernance de sociétés est le seul programme universitaire offert au Québec. Il s’adresse aux administrateurs siégeant à un conseil d’administration et disposant d’une expérience pertinente.

Les administrateurs de sociétés certifiés (ASC) sont regroupés dans la Banque des ASC, un outil de recherche en ligne mis au point par le Collège, afin de faciliter le recrutement d’administrateurs sur les conseils d’administration.

Bulletin du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) | Octobre 2014  

 

 CÉRÉMONIE OFFICIELLE DE REMISE DES DIPLÔMES

 

Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) a honoré les 78 nouveaux finissants du programme de certification universitaire en gouvernance de sociétés à l’occasion de la 9e cérémonie officielle de remise des diplômes. Présenté le jeudi 11 septembre 2014 à l’hôtel Château Laurier de Québec, l’événement a réuni les nouveaux administrateurs de sociétés certifiés (ASC), en plus d’une cinquantaine de partenaires et collaborateurs.

Au total, près de 150 invités s’étaient donné rendez-vous afin d’applaudir les diplômés de la promotion 2014 et célébrer la plus importante communauté d’administrateurs formés en gouvernance de sociétés au Québec qui se chiffre maintenant à 664 ASC (consultez le www.BanqueAdministrateurs.com pour leurs profils).

Pour tous les détails et des photos de l’événement [+]

DÉVOILEMENT DE LA 3E SÉRIE DE CAPSULES D’EXPERTS EN GOUVERNANCE

 

Le CAS est heureux de vous dévoiler sa 3e série de capsules d’experts, formée de huit entrevues vidéos. Pendant 3 minutes, un expert du Collège partage une réflexion et se prononce sur un sujet d’actualité lié à la gouvernance.

 

Une capsule sera dévoilée chaque semaine par bulletin électronique. À surveiller !

 

 

Cette semaine : La présidence du CA, par Michel Clair [+]

 DEUX NOUVEAUX COURS SPÉCIALISÉS EN GOUVERNANCE 

 

Il nous fait plaisir de vous informer que deux nouveaux cours spécialisés en gouvernance sont à l’horaire dès cet automne.

GOUVERNANCE DES OBNL : Cette formation s’adresse spécifiquement aux directeurs généraux, présidents et administrateurs des organismes à but non lucratif (OBNL) soucieux d’intégrer de nouvelles pratiques de gouvernance adaptées au contexte des OBNL afin d’assurer la pérennité et la performance de leur organisation.

Ce cours aura lieu à Québec, les 24 et 25 octobre prochains. Le coût d’inscription est normalement de 1 950 $ pour cette formation de deux jours. Toutefois, grâce à la participation financière de la SAQ et des partenaires du Collège, le tarif est réduit à 500 $ par participant. Détails et inscription [+]

GOUVERNANCE ET LEADERSHIP À LA PRÉSIDENCE : Cette formation est destinée aux administrateurs d’expérience exerçant la fonction de présidence du conseil d’administration, d’un des comités du conseil ou du comité consultatif d’une PME. Basé sur des études de cas, des simulations et des discussions en petits groupes, cette formation est principalement orientée sur la maîtrise des habilités relationnelles et de leadership qu’exige la fonction de présidence d’un conseil.

Ce cours se tiendra à Québec, les 13 et 14 novembre prochains et le coût d’inscription est de 1950 $ par participant. Détails et inscription [+]

Les formations spécialisées sont offertes en alternance à Québec et Montréal et sont limitées à des groupes de 20 participants. Il est aussi possible de s’inscrire à l’une ou l’autre de ces formations qui seront présentées à Montréal dès février 2015. Consulter le calendrier complet [+]

Les formations du collège et les événements en gouvernance auxquels le CAS est associé

 

Gouvernance des OBNL | 24 et 25 octobre 2014, à Québec | 13 et 14 mars 2015, à Montréal

Gouvernance des PME | 5 et 6 novembre 2014, à Québec | 24 et 25 février 2015, à Montréal

Gouvernance et leadership à la présidence | 13 et 14 novembre 2014, à Québec | 28 et 29 mai 2015, à Montréal

Certification – Module 1 : Les rôles et responsabilités des administrateurs | 12, 13 et 14 février 2015, à Québec, et 26, 27 et 28 mars 2015, à Montréal

Petit-déjeuner conférence de l’IAS section du Québec sur « Les défis technologiques : cybersécurités, nouvelles technologies et données massives » | 15 octobre 2014, à Montréal

Conférence Femmes Leaders par Les Affaires | 15 octobre 2014, à Québec

Journée annuelle des administrateurs de l’Institut français des administrateurs sur le thème «gouvernance et compétitivité» | 21 octobre 2014, à Paris

Programme de l’ecoDa « New Governance Challenges for Board Members in Europe » | 21 et 22 octobre 2014, à Bruxelles

7e édition du Colloque régional Entreprendre Façon Femme | 22 octobre 2014, à Québec

Petit-déjeuner conférence du Cercle des ASC sur « Votre CV d’administrateur : comment mettre en valeur votre expertise? » | 23 octobre 2014, à Québec | 30 octobre 2014, à Montréal

NOMINATIONS ASC

 

Catherine Claveau, ASC | Barreau du Québec et Conseil du Barreau du Québec

André Boisclair, ASC | Fondation du cancer du sein du Québec

Josée De La Durantaye, ASC | P. Baillargeon ltée.

Éric Fournier, ASC | Verseau International inc.

Alain Bolduc, ASC | Capsana

Michel Lamontagne, ASC | Coffrage Saulnier

Martin Cyrenne, ASC | Cercle des administrateurs de sociétés certifiés (ASC)

Annie Tremblay, ASC | Cercle des administrateurs de sociétés certifiés (ASC)

Paulette Legault, ASC | Cercle des administrateurs de sociétés certifiés (ASC), Ordre des opticiens d’ordonnances du Québec et Chambre de la sécurité financière du Québec

Clarence Turgeon, ASC | Conseil du Patronat du Québec

Lucie Lebeuf, ASC | Ville de Laval

Éric Lavoie, ASC | Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec

François Désy, ASC | Garde Côtière Auxiliaire Canadienne (Québec), Désy Meunier Construction Rénovation inc et Caisse populaire Desjardins de Baie-Comeau

José Mathieu, ASC | VCI Composites et NSE-Automatech

Boîte à outils pour administrateurs

 

Nouvelle référence mensuelle en gouvernance : Dossier spécial « Former un CA : enjeux et obligations » du Journal Les Affaires

La capsule d’expert du mois – NOUVEAUTÉ : La présidence du CA, par Michel Clair

Top 5 des billets les plus consultés au mois de septembre du blogue Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé.

Portrait d’Adm.A. sur Mme Lisane Dostie, ASC et formatrice au CAS

Bonne lecture !

____________________________________________

Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS)

Faculté des sciences de l’administration Pavillon Palasis-Prince

2325, rue de la Terrasse, Université Laval Québec (Québec) G1V 0A6

418 656-2630; 418 656-2624

info@cas.ulaval.ca

 

Deux grandes approches réglementaires à la diversité sur les C.A. : (1) les quotas ou les mesures ciblées et (2) l’obligation de divulgation


Aujourd’hui, j’aimerais partager avec vous une étude empirique vraiment très intéressante portant sur deux approches réglementaires à la diversité sur les conseils d’administration:

(1) les quotas ou les mesures ciblées et

(2) l’obligation de divulgation.

Aaron A. Dhir,  professeur associé de droit à la Osgoode Hall Law School de Toronto, présente plusieurs réflexions fort pertinentes sur l’expérience norvégienne d’imposition de quotas pour accroître le nombre de femmes sur les conseils d’administration.

Plusieurs règlementations se sont inspirées de cette approche pour prendre en compte cette variable fondamentale. La conclusion de l’auteur au sujet de cette première approche réglementaire est résumée de la façon suivante :

My study of the Norwegian quota model demonstrates the important role diversity can play in enhancing the quality of corporate governance, while also revealing the challenges diversity mandates pose.

En ce qui concerne l’approche basée sur l’obligation de divulgation des mesures de diversité adoptée par la Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), il appert que la règle ne donne aucune définition de la diversité et que les entreprises peuvent l’interpréter comme bon leur semble.

L’étude montre cependant que les organisations ont tendance à définir la diversité de manière très large, notamment en faisant référence à l’expérience antérieure pertinente des administrateurs (qui n’a rien à voir avec les caractéristiques sociodémographiques telles que le genre).

L’auteur avance également que cette réglementation a donné lieu à beaucoup d’efforts de définition de la diversité :

My study shows that “diversity” carries multiple connotations for these firms. My most salient finding, however, is that when interpreting this concept in the absence of regulatory guidance, the dominant corporate discourse is experiential rather than identity-based. Firms most frequently define diversity with reference to a director’s prior experience or other non-identity-based factors rather than his or her socio-demographic characteristics. The data provide a unique window into the potential meanings of “diversity” in the corporate governance setting, as well as the limits of a strategy that permits corporations to give the term their own definition.

L’auteur nous incite à lire les chapitres 1, 4 et 6 qui ont été publiés sur le réseau SSRN (Social Science Research Network). Le chapitre 1 présente l’objet de l’étude, la méthodologie, les deux variables étudiées, les résultats sommaires et les perspectives futures eu égard au débat sur la diversité.

Bonne lecture !

Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity: Corporate Law, Governance, and Diversity

The lack of gender parity in the governance of business corporations has ignited a heated global debate, leading policymakers to wrestle with difficult questions that lie at the intersection of market activity and social identity politics. In my new book, Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity: Corporate Law, Governance, and Diversity (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming in 2015), I draw on semi-structured interviews with corporate board directors in Norway and documentary content analysis of corporate securities filings in the United States to investigate empirically two distinct regulatory models designed to address diversity in the boardroom—quotas and disclosure.IMG_00001049

In Chapter 4, recently made available on SSRN, I explore the quota-based approach to achieving gender balance in corporate boardrooms. Quotas and related target-based measures for publicly traded firms are currently in place in a number of countries, including Iceland, Belgium, France, Italy, and Norway and are at different stages of consideration in other jurisdictions, including Canada, the European Union, and Germany.

I present findings from my qualitative, interview-based study of Norwegian corporate directors in order to provide empirical elucidation of how quota-based regimes operate in practice. The identity narratives of Norwegian board members offer particularly rich sources of insight, given that Norway was the first jurisdiction to pursue the quota path and thus has the most mature quota regime. While highly contentious when adopted, the Norwegian quota project unquestionably set the stage for subsequent legislative developments in other countries.

I delve into the lived experiences of Norwegian directors who gained appointments as a result of Norway’s quota law, as well as those who held appointments before the law was enacted. Several questions frame my investigation. How have these individuals subjectively experienced, and made sense of, this intrusive form of regulation? How does legally required gender diversity affect their economic and institutional lives? And how has it shaped boardroom cultural dynamics and decision making, as well as the overall governance fabric of the board?

The forced repopulation of boards along gender lines has disturbed the traditional order of corporate governance systems, dislocating established hierarchies of power in key market-based institutions. Norway represents the paradigmatic case of this disturbance and has set in motion a wave of corporate governance reform unlike any other. As such, it constitutes a fascinating and appropriate case study through which to consider the implications of quota regimes. My study of the Norwegian quota model demonstrates the important role diversity can play in enhancing the quality of corporate governance, while also revealing the challenges diversity mandates pose.

In Chapter 6, also recently made available on SSRN, I explore the disclosure-based approach to addressing diversity in corporate governance. In 2009, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a rule requiring publicly traded firms to report on whether they consider diversity in identifying director nominees and, if so, how. The rule also requires firms that have adopted a diversity policy to describe how they implement the policy and assess its effectiveness. The rule does not define “diversity,” however, leaving it to corporations to give this term meaning.

I present findings from my mixed-methods content analysis of corporate disclosures submitted during the first four years of the rule in order to provide empirical elucidation of how the rule operates in practice. The research sample consists of a hand-collected dataset of the 2010–2013 definitive proxy statements of S&P 100 firms. I am interested in learning how these firms, in responding to the rule, construct the concept of diversity through their public discourse. What does diversity, viewed through the prism of legal regulation, mean to market participants? How do they interpret and understand this socio-political idea in the absence of a regulatory definition? How is diversity constituted and discursively performed?

The SEC’s disclosure rule has caused US corporations to establish a vocabulary of diversity. My study shows that “diversity” carries multiple connotations for these firms. My most salient finding, however, is that when interpreting this concept in the absence of regulatory guidance, the dominant corporate discourse is experiential rather than identity-based. Firms most frequently define diversity with reference to a director’s prior experience or other nonidentity-based factors rather than his or her socio-demographic characteristics. The data provide a unique window into the potential meanings of “diversity” in the corporate governance setting, as well as the limits of a strategy that permits corporations to give the term their own definition.

Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity aims to deepen ongoing policy conversations and offer new insights into the role law can play in reshaping the gendered dynamics of corporate governance cultures. The full version of Chapter 1 is available for download here.

Notions de gouvernance 101 | Que font les administrateurs ?


Vous trouverez ci-dessous un article de Lucy P. Marcus*, experte en gouvernance, qui présente, de manière vulgarisée, en quoi consiste le travail des administrateurs de sociétés aujourd’hui.

On y trouvera une bonne définition des responsabilités des administrateurs ainsi qu’une métaphore intéressante qui montre comment le travail des administrateurs a considérablement changé au cours des vingt dernières années.

L’auteure distingue entre les activités qui sont de nature « grounding » (connaissances de bases de la performance et des obligations de conformité) et celles, toujours plus importantes, qui sont de l’ordre du « stargazing » (la vision à long terme et la stratégie).

Je vous invite à lire ce bref article qui tient lieu de notions de gouvernance 101 !

Bonne lecture !

Boardroom 101: What, exactly, do directors do?

 

The boardroom is changing at a fast pace. The agenda items we discuss, the expectations of board directors and the responsibility we hold are all areas that are going through a much needed, and, in my experience, a very welcome, transition.

When my son was around 5 years old, I was preparing for a board meeting and he asked what that was and what I was going to do there.

Lucy P. Marcus
Lucy P. Marcus*, experte en gouvernance

That’s a question many adults have, too. What, exactly, is a board and what does a board director do?

Searching for an explanation, I finally went with this: « You know about King Arthur and the Round Table? Well, like King Arthur and the Round Table, a group of wise people gather together every month or so. We sit around a table and talk about what the people we are helping have been doing and what they are planning to do next. We try to make sure they are acting honourably and following the law and doing what is best for everyone. »

He seemed fairly satisfied with that answer, but it got me thinking — was the metaphor apt? Is that really what directors are doing in practice?

It does seem sometimes like the board is an arcane and distant body. A caricature would be one where the doors open with a whoosh to reveal suited people sitting around a table in an oak panelled room, having confidential discussions in hushed tones, drawing on deep expertise and thinking big thoughts. And of course, those discussions would be spoken in a special « thee and thou » language.

There are parts of that caricature which do ring true. We board directors generally do sit around a table, and I’d like to think we generally have robust discussions. Strangely, we do often speak in formal ways, referring to “Mr Chairman” and the like. As for the “deep expertise” and “big thoughts” part, I’m not sure we are always well equipped with enough information to make decisions.

Changes afoot

The boardroom is changing at a fast pace. The agenda items we discuss, the expectations of board directors and the responsibility we hold are all areas that are going through a much needed, and, in my experience, a very welcome, transition.

Board agendas used to be rigid and mostly focused on traditional oversight topics such as compensation and compliance. That mandate has grown to include a great deal more.

To better understand the changes and how they affect our job as directors, it is useful to think of the tasks and the agenda items of the board as being broadly divided into a balance of what I call “grounding” and “stargazing”.

The “grounding” side consists of what you might think of as the tick-boxing items: questions around the structure and performance of the organisation in the “here and now”. Is it behaving legally and responsibly? Is it following the rules and regulations? Are its financial accounts in good order? Does it meet to the expectations not just of its shareholders but also of other stakeholders in the broader ecosystem in which it operates?

The “stargazing” side is about strategy. This is the essence of what and where the organisation wants to be in the future. It is about asking questions about how the sector is changing and how the organisation plans to grow. It is also about challenging it to make the necessary changes as the world around it changes too, and to be a driver of positive change. It is about building innovation and a sense of excitement about the future into the DNA.

The old agendas were heavily weighted towards the “grounding” side of the equation, but today, a good balance of “grounding” and “stargazing” is vital to preparing the organisation for the future. The board must look closely at the here and now, making sure everything is working correctly; otherwise we run the risk of missing signs of everything from neglect to malfeasance. We must also look into the next 10 to 15 years to make sure that the organisation has a robust future to look forward to.

Responsibilities increase

The world around us has changed at an exponential pace. Companies are seen as having a greater responsibility for the role they play in the health and well-being of society. They also bear some responsibility for the individuals that they touch, be it employees, partners, or people who live in the community. At the same time, social media and niche publications amplify the voices of shareholders, communities and consumers. Also, boards and companies no longer operate in a black box — with the advent of everything from Twitter to Google Earth, there is more transparency than ever before.

Partly as a consequence of these changes in the boardroom and beyond, the responsibilities and expectations of directors, particularly independent directors, have increased exponentially. It is not sufficient to skim the board papers, ask a couple of superficial questions, eat the lovely meal, and be on your merry way home.

Board directors are now, rightly, expected to read the papers, come prepared, and ask the tough questions. Though the boardroom has traditionally been a black box room, much has changed. Individual directors will increasingly find themselves being held to account for the choices that they have made in the boardroom in many areas, be it around executive compensation or “innovative” tax strategies.

It means that we as directors must be more diligent and make sure we are only voting ‘yes’ for things when we have a thorough understanding of what the implications of the ‘yes’ is — both now and in the longer term. We must take into account those whose lives are impacted directly, such as people who work for the company and those who live in the area where the company sits, as well as the people who use the company’s products and services. It also about those who are impacted indirectly, such as shareholders whose life savings may be at stake. Those are all positives, in my view.

In the end, if we are to live up to the ideal of King Arthur and the Round Table, chivalrous knights who are guided by the ideals of courtesy, courage, and honour, we must ask ourselves every time we gather, “Why are we here and who do we serve?” so that the decisions we take are made wisely and judiciously, not only to serve the needs of the few, but to ensure that we help the organisation to live up to its potential, and do so in an honourable way.

_________________________

*, CEO, Non-Exec Board Director, Prof IE Biz School, Project Syndicate & BBC columnist.

Candidature à un poste d’administrateur de sociétés | Sept défis à considérer


Tracy E. Houston* est présidente de Board Resources Services; elle possède une solide expérience des conseils d’administration et de de la consultation en gouvernance.

Dans le cadre de ses activités de consultation, elle a souvent l’occasion d’orienter les candidats vers des postes de membres de conseils d’administration d’organisation publiques (cotées). Dans ses fonctions, elle est en mesure de fournir certaines recommandations aux futurs administrateurs.

Voici donc, selon elle, les sept principaux défis que les administrateurs de sociétés potentiels doivent envisager. Bonne lecture !

Top 7 Challenges for Public Company Director Candidates

Over the last few years, I have heard from a number of board candidates about their biggest challenges. I have dug through my notes to share these. My hope is that the definitions and tips will bring further insights that will leverage and prioritize your time and efforts to gain a board seat.

1. Time

Boards move slowly. This makes keeping in touch essential for director candidates. Some become discouraged, lose momentum, or completely stop networking. Those who remain consistent in their networking and communication efforts have an advantage.

2. A Clear Focus

The board world is large and mysterious. Without a well-defined board-level value proposition of what you bring to a board—one that provides focus and definition—then, time and energy is spent in a mud-on-the-wall approach and drains any sense of confidence that could be used to capitalize on potential opportunities. This is not just about having a good resume, you need to know how you can bring value, to what size company boards, and in what industry.

3. Priorities that Have Impact

There is a diverse set of stakeholders that are a part of the networking to gain a board seat. This is a complex business ecosystem in which to execute and can cause indecisiveness. Stakeholders, once defined, must be weighted for level of importance and leveraged to help you gain visibility.

4. Relearn

Boards are in a time of transition in defining who will be the next director. For the transformations happening now and in the future, your talents need to be closely aligned with the agendas and priorities with the boards on your target list. Build a strategic message about why you should be their next director.

5. Fragmentation

The market is producing a number of new ways to identify the next generation candidate. This makes it hard to know where you need to be and to stay on top of the trends. Ensure your reading and networking time gains key information in this area.

6. Foundational Changes

There are three foundational changes needed for a 21st century director candidate:

(1) Develop the skills, routines, and tools to truly leverage your potential from social media.

(2) Create and champion your brand or value proposition—it must be grounded in tangible differences.

(3) Deeply understand the boards you have targeted and create insights that naturally engage those to whom you present yourself as a board candidate. Be thoughtful so that the assumptions you make are not ones locked in the past.

7. Breaking Through the Clutter

Once on a short list for a director seat, be on your “A” game. Ask the right questions before the interviewing process to help shape your contributions in the interviews. Be consistent and have a few themes or main points developed.

_______________________________________

*Tracy E. Houston is the president of Board Resources Services, LLC. She is a refined specialist in board consulting and executive coaching with a heartfelt passion for rethinking performance, teams and the boardroom.

Comment les principaux intéressés peuvent-ils évaluer la qualité d’un conseil d’administration ?


Que peut faire un actionnaire ou un investisseur pour évaluer la compétence d’un conseil d’administration et se former une opinion sur l’efficacité de son rôle de fiduciaire ?

Voici un article, publié par la rédaction d’Investopedia, qui présente un checklist en cinq points, simple mais fort utile, pour mieux savoir quoi regarder dans la documentation publique.

Bien sûr, votre évaluation ne sera pas nécessairement concluante mais je suis assuré que si vous portez une attention spéciale aux 5 éléments présentés ci-dessous, vous aurez une bien meilleure appréciation des qualités du conseil et de ses administrateurs.

Quels autres facteurs considérez-vous dans l’évaluation des compétences d’un Board ? Bonne lecture !

Evaluating The Board Of Directors

You can learn a lot from looking at the disclosures made about a company’s board of directors in its annual report, but it takes time and knowledge to pick up clues on the level of quality of a company’s governance as reflected in its board’s composition and responsibilities. (For related reading, see An Investor’s Checklist To Financial Footnotes and Footnotes: Early Warning Signs For Investors.)

Tulips

In theory, the board is responsible to the shareholders and is supposed to govern a company’s management. But in many instances, the board has become a servant of the chief executive officer (CEO), who is typically also the chairman of the board. The role of the board of directors has increasingly come under scrutiny in light of corporate scandals such as those at Enron, WorldCom and HealthSouth, in which the board of directors failed to act in investors’ best interests. Although the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made corporations more accountable, investors should still pay attention to what a corporation’s board of directors is up to. Here we’ll show you what the board of directors can tell you about how a company is being run.

The Checklist
According to an October 27, 2003, Wall Street Journal article, a checklist was developed by the Corporate Library to help investors evaluate the objectivity and effectiveness of a board. According to this checklist, investors should examine:

1. Size of the Board
There is no universal agreement on the optimum size of a board of directors. A large number of members represents a challenge in terms of using them effectively and/or having any kind of meaningful individual participation. According to the Corporate Library’s study, the average board size is 9.2 members, and most boards range from 3 to 31 members. Some analysts think the ideal size is seven.

In addition, there are two critical board committees that must be made up of independent members:

  1. The compensation committee
  2. The audit committee

The minimum number for each committee is three. This means that a minimum of six board members is needed so that no one is on more than one committee. Having members doing double duty may compromise the important wall between audit and compensation, which helps avoid any conflicts of interest. Members serving on a number of other boards may not devote adequate time to their responsibilities.

The seventh member is the chairperson of the board. It’s the responsibility of the chairperson to make sure the board is functioning properly and the CEO is fulfilling his or her duty and following the directives of the board. A conflict of interest is created if the CEO is also the chairperson of the board.

To staff any additional committees, such as nominating or governance, additional people may be necessary. However, having more than nine members may make the board too big to function effectively. (For background reading, see The Basics Of Corporate Structure.)

2. The Degree of Independence: Insiders and Outsiders
A key attribute of an effective board is that it is comprised of a majority of independent outsiders. While not necessarily true, a board with a majority of insiders is often viewed as being stacked with sycophants, especially in cases where the CEO is also the chairman of the board.

An outsider is someone who has never worked at the company, is not related to any of the key employees and has never worked for a major supplier, customer or service provider, such as lawyers, accountants, consultants, investment bankers, etc. While this definition of independent outsiders is clear, you’d be surprised at the number of times it is misapplied. Too often, the « outsider » label is given to the retired CEO or a relative when that person is actually an insider with conflicts of interest.The Wall Street Journal article found that independent outsiders made up 66% of all boards and 72% of Standard & Poor’s (S&P) boards. The larger the number of outside board members the better. This makes the board more independent and allows it to provide a higher level of corporate governance to shareholders, particularly if the position of chairman of the board is separated from the CEO and is held by an outsider.

3. Committees
There are four important board committees: executive, audit, compensation and nominating. There may be more committees depending on corporate philosophy, which is determined by an ethics committee and special circumstances relating to a particular company’s line of business. Let’s take a closer look at the four main committees:

  1. The Executive Committee
    The executive committee, is made up of a small number of board members that are readily accessible and easily convened, to decide on matters subject to board consideration but must be decided on expeditiously, such as a quarterly meeting. Executive committee proceedings are always reported to and reviewed by the full board. Just as with the full board, investors should prefer that independent directors make up the majority of an executive committee.
  2. The Audit Committee
    The audit committee works with the auditors to make sure that the books are correct and that there are no conflicts of interest between the auditors and the other consulting firms employed by the company. Ideally, the chair of the audit committee is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Often, a CPA is not on the audit committee, let alone on the board. The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) requires that the audit committee include a financial expert, but this qualification is typically met by a retired banker, even though that person’s ability to catch fraud may be questionable. The audit committee should meet at least four times a year in order to review the most recent audit. An additional meeting should be held if there are other issues that need to be addressed
  3. The Compensation Committee.
    The compensation committee is responsible for setting the pay of top executives. It seems obvious that the CEO or other people with conflicts of interest should not be on this committee, but you’d be surprised at the number of companies that allow just that. It is important to check if the members of the compensation board are also on the compensation committees of other firms because of the potential conflict of interest. The compensation committee should meet at least twice a year. Having only one meeting may be a sign that the committee meets just to approve a pay package that was created by the CEO or a consultant without much debate. (To learn more, read Evaluating Executive Compensation.)
  4. The Nominating Committee
    This committee is responsible for nominating people to the board. The nomination process should aim to bring on people with independence and a skill set currently lacking on the board.M

4. Other Commitments and Time Constraints
The number of boards and committees a board member is on is a key consideration when judging the effectiveness of a member.

The following chart from the survey shows the time commitments of board members of the 1,700 largest U.S. public companies according the the study’s 2003 data. This indicates that the majority of board members sit on no more than three boards. What this data does not specify is the number of committees to which these people belong.

You’ll often find that independent board members serve on both the audit and compensation committees and are also on three or more other boards. You have to wonder how much time a board member can devote to a company’s business if the person is on multiple boards. This situation also raises questions about the supply of independent outside directors. Are these people pulling double duty because there’s a lack of qualified outsiders?

5. Related Transactions
Companies must disclose any transactions with executives and directors in a financial note entitled « Related Transactions. » This discloses actions or relationships that cause conflicts of interest, such as doing business with a director’s company or having relatives of the CEO receiving professional fees from the company.

The Bottom Line
The composition and performance of a board of directors says a lot about its responsibilities to a company’s shareholders. A board loses credibility if its objectivity and independence are compromised by material shortcomings in this checklist. Investors are poorly served by substandard governance practices.

Clarifications au sujet des deux principaux systèmes de gouvernance | One Tier vs Two Tier


Ici, en Amérique du Nord, on entend quelquefois parler des distinctions entre le modèle de gouvernance européen et le modèle de gouvernance à l’américaine. Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, une brève synthèse des particularités des modèles de gouvernance européens eu égard à la distinction one tier/two tier systèmes de gouvernance.

Cette conclusions est basée sur une recherche de type « Benchmarking » conduite par ecoDa* (The European Confederation of Directors Associations) auprès de ses membres des Instituts de gouvernance européens ainsi qu’auprès d’autres membres non-européens, tel que le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS).

À la suite de l’extrait présentant les grandes lignes de ces modèles de gouvernance, vous trouverez un portrait plus précis des principales différences entre les deux systèmes, dont les deux plus représentatifs (UK, One Tier; Allemagne, Two Tier).

Bonne lecture !

 

Although the European Union tries to undermine the differences, the corporate law and corporate governance is highly diversified throughout Europe, embedded in a long history of specific societal and economic approaches towards the organisation of the business world, aligning governance with these quite different societal priorities.IMG_20140520_212116

In the two tier system, supervisory board members control the strategy but don’t define it. In the two tier system, there is also a clear cut between management and control responsibilities. In the one tier system, the board governs the company e. g. controls the direction, defines the strategic options and can address any issues related to the performance of the company.

People advocating for the two tier model always point out that having distance between management and oversight creates independence that makes sense. People defending the one-tier system consider that having executives and non-executives on the same board provides a better flow of information and helps to overcome problems that boards can face in understanding what is going on in the company. The one-tier system would also enable the non-executive to see how executive operate together as a team. The non-executive would be more involved in forward-looking of the strategy. As a downside effect of the one tier system, it is difficult for non-executives to draw distinction between monitoring and oversight.

The one tier system is often seen as an English model while the two-tier system is more of a German style. But the reality is more complex than that over the different countries in the European Union. The Nordic Corporate Governance (CG) model is quite unique with a strictly hierarchical governance structure and a direct chain of command among the general meeting, the board and the CEO. The Italian CG model is also special with the distinction between the managing body (sole administrator or, in the collective form of a board of directors) and the controlling organ (so called “board of statutory auditors”)

 

One-tier board system Two-tier board system 
Organisation
A single board. A supervisory body and a management body.
Composition
Mixed, executive and non-executive directors may serve on the board. Separate, executive and non-executive directors serve on separate boards (i.e., a supervisory board composed exclusively of non-executive directors and a management board composed exclusively of executive directors).
Organisation
Unitary Binary
Committees
Mandatory or recommended Supervisory and advisory committees(Mandatory) oversight and advisory committees such as the audit committee, the remuneration committee and the nomination (appointments) committee, composed of a majority of non-executive directors, one or more of whom must be independent.Supervisory committee

Optional committee entrusted with supervising the company, composed of both executive and non-executive directors.

Usually differs slightly from a true supervisory board (as found in the two-tier system) in terms of powers, composition and role.

 

Mostly found in countries which present characteristics of a one-tier system while incorporating certain features of a two-tier system.

 

 OptionalHistorically not required but oversight and advisory committees are increasingly important in the two-tier system as well.
Roles
Board of directors Managerial roleDirection and executive actsDecision-taking, management and oversightPerformance enhancement

Supervisory role

Accountability

Strategic and financial oversight

 

 Management board Managerial roleDirection and executive actsDecision-taking and managementPerformance enhancement

Service and strategic role

 

Supervisory board

 

Supervisory role

Accountability

Decision-taking and oversight

Monitoring role

Strategic and financial oversight

 

 
CEO duality
Allowed.The same person can serve as both CEO and chair of the board of directors (although this is generally not recommended by corporate governance practices). 

 

 Restricted.No CEO duality (although the CEO can sometimes be a member or attend meetings of the supervisory board.)
Executive directors
Appointed by the general meeting of shareholders, based on a proposal by the board or appointments committee (if any).A director may be appointed by the board of directors when the term of office of another director comes to an end, in order to prevent the board from being paralyzed, for example if the board no longer has a sufficient number of members as required by law or the articles (co-optation procedure).The appointment of a co-opted director must be confirmed at the first general meeting of shareholders following his or her appointment.  Appointed by the supervisory board or the general meeting of shareholders, based on a proposal by the board or the appointments committee (if there is one).
Non-Executive (supervisory directors)
Idem. Appointed by the general meeting of shareholders or, based on a proposal by the supervisory board or the appointments committee (if there is one).
Conflicts perspective
Negatively associated with the separation of decision-management and decision-oversight roles due to its composition (a majority of executive directors) and unitary structure.Diffusion of tasks and responsibilities weakens the non-executive directors’ ability to oversee the implementation of decisions, especially where executive and non-executive directors face the same potential legal liability.Higher risk of conflicts of interest between management and shareholders. 

To avoid conflicts of interest, it is often recommended that the one-tier board be composed of a majority of non-executive directors, due to   (i)

their experience and knowledge, (ii) their contacts, which may enhance management’s ability to secure external resources, and (iii) their independence from the CEO.

 

In companies which have achieved a certain level of development, risks of conflicts of interest are often reduced through the creation of committees allowing these functions to be segregated. In addition, legal provisions aimed at preventing and resolving conflict of interest exist in most jurisdictions.

  		•  Positively associated with the separation of decision-management and decision-oversight roles, due to the composition of the supervisory board (independent directors) which ensures independence and its binary structure.No diffusion of tasks and responsibilities. 

    Lower risk of conflicts of interest between management and shareholders.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    (Dis)advantages
    AdvantagesSpirit of partnership and mutual respect between directors, which allows greater interaction amongst all board members.Non-executive directors have more contact with the company itself and are more involved in the decision-making process. Non-executive directors have direct access to information.

     

    Decision-making process is faster.

     

    A lighter administrative burden as only a single management body needs to hold meetings and only a single set of minutes need be drawn up.

     

    Board meetings take place more regularly.

     

    Disadvantages

    A single body is entrusted with both managing and supervising the company’s operations.

     

    More difficult to guarantee the independence of board members and there is a greater risk of non-executive directors aligning too much with executive directors.

     

    More liability for non-executive directors.

     

     

    		 Advantages Clear distinction between the supervisory and management functions within the company.Clear distinctions of liabilities between the members of the supervisory and management bodies.Supervisory board members are more independent.

     

    Clear separation of the roles of chairman and CEO.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Disadvantages

    It is more difficult for directors to build relationships of trust, thereby potentially undermining communication between the two boards.

     

    Supervisory board members only receive limited information (from the management board) and at a later stage (decreased involvement). There is a heightened risk of the supervisory board not discovering shortcomings or discovering them too late.

     

    Decision-making process is delayed due to less frequent supervisory board meetings.

     

    Non-executive directors face several challenges which appear to be typical of the two-tier board model, such as difficulties (i) building relationships of trust, thereby potentially undermining communication and flows of information between the two boards, and (ii) fully understanding and ratifying strategic initiatives by the management board, thereby frustrating the decision-making processes.

     

    _______________________________________________

    ecoDa (The European Confederation of Directors Associations) is a not-for-profit association based in Brussels, which acts as the « European voice of directors » and represents around 60,000 board directors from across the European Union (EU) member states. The organisation acts as a forum for debate and public advocacy by influencing the public policy debate at EU level and by promoting appropriate director training, professional development and boardroom best practice.

    Les risques de gouvernance associés à l’OPA d’Alibaba


    , professeur de droit, d’économique et de finance, et directeur des programmes sur la gouvernance corporative à la Harvard law School vient de publier un article très important dans le New York Times.

    L’auteur met les investisseurs en garde contre de réels risques de gouvernance liés à l’offre publique d’achat (OPA) de l’entreprise chinoise Alibaba.

    Je crois qu’il est utile de mieux comprendre les enjeux de gouvernance avant d’investir dans cette immense OPA.

    Bonne lecture !

     

    Wall Street is eagerly watching what is expected to be one of the largest initial public offering in history: the offering of the Chinese Internet retailer Alibaba at the end of this week. Investors have been described by the media as “salivating” and “flooding underwriters with orders.” It is important for investors, however, to keep their eyes open to the serious governance risks accompanying an Alibaba investment.

    Several factors combine to create such risks. For one, insiders have a permanent lock on control of the company but hold only a small minority of the equity capital. Then, there are many ways to divert value to affiliated entities, but there are weak mechanisms to prevent this. Consequently, public investors should worry that, over time, a significant amount of the value created by Alibaba would not be shared with them.

    In Alibaba, control is going to be locked forever in the hands of a group of insiders known as the Alibaba Partnership. These are all managers in the Alibaba Group or related companies. The Partnership will have the exclusive right to nominate candidates for a majority of the board seats. Furthermore, if the Partnership fails to obtain shareholder approval for its candidates, it will be entitled “in its sole discretion and without the need for any additional shareholder approval” to appoint directors unilaterally, thus ensuring that its chosen directors always have a majority of board seats.

    Alibaba is scheduled to become a publicly traded company later this week.

    Many public companies around the world, especially in emerging economies, have a large shareholder with a lock on control. Such controlling shareholders, however, often own a substantial portion of the equity capital that provides them with beneficial incentives. In the case of Alibaba, investors need to worry about the relatively small stake held by the members of the controlling Alibaba Partnership.

    After the I.P.O., Alibaba’s executive chairman, Jack Ma, is expected to hold 7.8 percent of the shares and all the directors and executive officers will hold together 13.1 percent. Over time, insiders may well cash out some of their current holding, but Alibaba’s governance structure would ensure that directors chosen by the Alibaba Partnership will forever control the board, regardless of the size of the stake held by the Partnership’s members.

    With an absolute lock on control and a limited fraction of the equity capital, the Alibaba insiders will have substantial incentives to divert value from Alibaba to other entities in which they own a substantial percentage of the equity. This can be done by placing future profitable opportunities in such entities, or making deals with such entities on terms that favor them at the expense of Alibaba.

    Alibaba’s prospectus discloses information about various past “related party transactions,” and these disclosures reflect the significance and risks to public investors of such transactions. For example, in 2010, Alibaba divested its control and ownership of Alipay, which does all of the financial processing for Alibaba, and Alipay is now fully controlled and substantially owned by Alibaba’s executive chairman.

    Public investors should worry not only about whether the Alibaba’s divesting of Alipay benefited Mr. Ma at the expense of Alibaba, but also about the terms of the future transactions between Alibaba and Alipay. Because Alibaba relies on Alipay “to conduct substantially all of the payment processing” in its marketplace, these terms are important for Alibaba’s future success.

    Mr. Ma owns a larger fraction of Alipay’s equity capital than of Alibaba’s, so he would economically benefit from terms that would disfavor Alibaba. Indeed, given the circumstances, the I.P.O. prospectus acknowledges that Mr. Ma may act to resolve Alibaba-Alipay conflicts not in Alibaba’s favor.

    The prospectus seeks to allay investor concerns, however, by indicating that Mr. Ma intends to reduce his stake in in Alipay within three to five years, including by having shares in Alipay granted to Alibaba employees. But stating such an intention does not represent an irreversible legal commitment. Furthermore, transfers of Alipay ownership stakes from Mr. Ma to other members of the Alibaba Partnership would still leave the Partnership’s aggregate interest to be decidedly on the side of Alipay rather than Alibaba.

    Given the significant related party transactions that have already taken place, and the prospect of such transactions in the future, Alibaba tried to placate investors by putting in a “new related party transaction policy.” But this new policy hardly provides investors with solid protection. Unlike charter and bylaw provisions, corporate policies are generally not binding. Furthermore, Alibaba’s policy explicitly allows the board, where the nominees of Alibaba partnership will always have a majority, to approve any exceptions to the policy that the board chooses.

    Of course, the Alibaba partners might elect not to take advantage of the opportunities for diversion provided to them by Alibaba’s structure. And, even if the partners do use such opportunities, the future business success of Alibaba might be large enough to make up for the costs of diversions and leave public investors with good returns on their investment.

    Before jumping in, however, investors rushing to participate in the Alibaba I.P.O. must recognize the substantial governance risks that they would be taking. Alibaba’s structure does not provide adequate protections to public investors.

    __________________________________________

    Article relié :

    Alibaba Raises the Fund-Raising Target for Its I.P.O. to $21.8 Billion (Sept. 15, 2014)

    Une perspective française sur le « Say on Pay » et la réalité de la transparence


    Ce matin, je porte à votre attention une courte vidéo produite par la chaîne française Xerfi Canal qui aborde le sujet du « Say on Pay », une importation du système réglementaire américain.

    Entendez le point de vue de l’expert français Philippe Portier, avocat-associé au cabinet JeantetAssociés, qui répond aux questions Thibault Lieurade sur l’efficacité de ce dispositif appliqué au système de gouvernance français.

    Quel est votre avis sur l’application de certaines mesures de gouvernance dans un contexte culturel différent ?

    Voici une brève description du contenu. Bon visionnement !

    Depuis la mi-2013 en France, les actionnaires des entreprises cotées assujetties au code de gouvernance AFEP-MEDEF émettent un avis sur les rémunérations des dirigeants. C’est le principe du Say on Pay.

    L’objectif théorique est double :

    (1) limiter l’inflation jugée inacceptable socialement des rémunérations des dirigeants et

    (2) redonner du pouvoir aux actionnaires.

    Rémunération des dirigeants : « say on pay » et transparence réelle

     

    Philippe-Portier-Remuneration-des-dirigeants-say-on-pay-et-transparence-reelle
    Philippe Portier | Rémunération des dirigeants : « say on pay » et transparence réelle

    Toute la lumière sur les attentes envers les C.A. | L’état de situation selon Lipton


    Aujourd’hui, je veux vous faire partager le point de vue de Martin Lipton*, expert dans les questions de fusion et d’acquisition ainsi que dans les affaires se rapportant à la gouvernance des entreprises, sur les enjeux des C.A.. L’auteur met l’accent sur les pratiques exemplaires en gouvernance et sur les comportements attendus des conseils d’administration.

    Ce texte, paru sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance,résume très bien les devoirs et les responsabilités des administrateurs de sociétés de nos jours et renforce la nécessité, pour les conseils d’administration, de gérer les situations d’offres hostiles.

    Bonne lecture ! Êtes-vous d’accord avec les attentes énoncées ? Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.

    The Spotlight on Boards

     

    The ever evolving challenges facing corporate boards prompts an updated snapshot of what is expected from the board of directors of a major public company—not just the legal rules, but also the aspirational “best practices” that have come to have almost as much influence on board and company behavior.

    Boards are expected to:

    Establish the appropriate “Tone at the Top” to actively cultivate a corporate culture that gives high priority to ethical standards, principles of fair dealing, professionalism, integrity, full compliance with legal requirements and ethically sound strategic goals.IMG_20140523_112914

    Choose the CEO, monitor his or her performance and have a succession plan in case the CEO becomes unavailable or fails to meet performance expectations.

    Maintain a close relationship with the CEO and work with management to encourage entrepreneurship, appropriate risk taking, and investment to promote the long-term success of the company (despite the constant pressures for short-term performance) and to navigate the dramatic changes in domestic and world-wide economic, social and political conditions. Approve the company’s annual operating plan and long-term strategy, monitor performance and provide advice to management as a strategic partner.

    Develop an understanding of shareholder perspectives on the company and foster long-term relationships with shareholders, as well as deal with the requests of shareholders for meetings to discuss governance and the business portfolio and operating strategy. Evaluate the demands of corporate governance activists, make changes that the board believes will improve governance and resist changes that the board believes will not be constructive. Work with management and advisors to review the company’s business and strategy, with a view toward minimizing vulnerability to attacks by activist hedge funds.

    Organize the business, and maintain the collegiality, of the board and its committees so that each of the increasingly time-consuming matters that the board and board committees are expected to oversee receives the appropriate attention of the directors.

    Plan for and deal with crises, especially crises where the tenure of the CEO is in question, where there has been a major disaster or a risk management crisis, or where hard-earned reputation is threatened by a product failure or a socio-political issue. Many crises are handled less than optimally because management and the board have not been proactive in planning to deal with crises, and because the board cedes control to outside counsel and consultants.

    Determine executive compensation to achieve the delicate balance of enabling the company to recruit, retain and incentivize the most talented executives, while also avoiding media and populist criticism of “excessive” compensation and taking into account the implications of the “say-on-pay” vote.

    Face the challenge of recruiting and retaining highly qualified directors who are willing to shoulder the escalating work load and time commitment required for board service, while at the same time facing pressure from shareholders and governance advocates to embrace “board refreshment”, including issues of age, length of service, independence, gender and diversity. Provide compensation for directors that fairly reflects the significantly increased time and energy that they must now spend in serving as board and board committee members. Evaluate the board’s performance, and the performance of the board committees and each director.

    Determine the company’s reasonable risk appetite (financial, safety, cyber, political, reputation, etc.), oversee the implementation by management of state-of-the-art standards for managing risk, monitor the management of those risks within the parameters of the company’s risk appetite and seek to ensure that necessary steps are taken to foster a culture of risk-aware and risk-adjusted decision-making throughout the organization.

    Oversee the implementation by management of state-of-the-art standards for compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, monitor compliance and respond appropriately to “red flags.”

    Take center stage whenever there is a proposed transaction that creates a real or perceived conflict between the interests of stockholders and those of management, including takeovers and attacks by activist hedge funds focused on the CEO.

    Recognize that shareholder litigation against the company and its directors is part of modern corporate life and should not deter the board from approving a significant acquisition or other material transaction, or rejecting a merger proposal or a hostile takeover bid, all of which is within the business judgment of the board.

    Set high standards of social responsibility for the company, including human rights, and monitor performance and compliance with those standards.

    Oversee relations with government, community and other constituents.

    Review corporate governance guidelines and committee charters and tailor them to promote effective board functioning.

    To meet these expectations, it will be necessary for major public companies

    (1) to have a sufficient number of directors to staff the requisite standing and special committees and to meet expectations for diversity;

    (2) to have directors who have knowledge of, and experience with, the company’s businesses, even if this results in the board having more than one director who is not “independent”;

    (3) to have directors who are able to devote sufficient time to preparing for and attending board and committee meetings;

    (4) to provide the directors with regular tutorials by internal and external experts as part of expanded director education; and

    (5) to maintain a truly collegial relationship among and between the company’s senior executives and the members of the board that enhances the board’s role both as strategic partner and as monitor.

    ________________________________________________

    * Martin Lipton is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy

    Bulletin du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) | Septembre 2014


    Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, le Bulletin du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) du mois de septembre 2014.

    Seul programme de certification universitaire en gouvernance de sociétés offert au Québec, il s’adresse aux administrateurs siégeant à un conseil d’administration et disposant d’une expérience pertinente.

    Les administrateurs de sociétés certifiés (ASC) sont regroupés dans la Banque des ASC, un outil de recherche en ligne mis au point par le Collège, afin de faciliter le recrutement d’administrateurs sur les conseils d’administration.

    Bulletin du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) | Septembre 2014

    _______________________

     

    RAPPORT D’ACTIVITÉ 2013-2014

     

    Rapport d'activité 2013-2014 du CASC’est avec plaisir que le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés vous présente son Rapport d’activité 2013-2014.

    Vous y trouverez un bilan positif de cette neuvième année, marquée par de nombreuses actions visant à diversifier notre offre de formation, à affirmer notre statut de leader de la formation des administrateurs et à promouvoir l’excellence en gouvernance au Québec.

    Consultez le rapport pour tous les détails [+]

     

     

    Banques des administrateurs de sociétés certifiés

     

    Le Collège est fier de mettre en ligne une nouvelle présentation de la Banque des Administrateurs de sociétés certifiés (ASC). La Banque des ASC est maintenant intégrée au site Web du Collège et propose un nouvel outil de recherche bonifié, ainsi qu’un design plus ergonomique.

    Plusieurs nouveautés ont été apportées à l’outil de recherche dans le but d’optimiser la recherche d’ASC selon les requêtes des recruteurs d’administrateurs.

    Consultez cette nouvelle Banque des ASC [+]

     

    DÉVOILEMENT DE LA 3E SÉRIE DE CAPSULES D’EXPERTS EN GOUVERNANCE

     

    3e série de capsules d'experts : les médias sociaux, par Sylvain LafranceLe CAS est heureux de vous dévoiler sa 3e série de capsules d’experts, formée de huit entrevues vidéos. Pendant 3 minutes, un expert du Collège partage une réflexion et se prononce sur un sujet d’actualité lié à la gouvernance.

    Une capsule sera dévoilée chaque semaine par bulletin électronique. À surveiller !

    Cette semaine : Les médias sociaux, par Sylvain Lafrance [+]

     Les programmes de formation du CAS

     

    Gouvernance des PME | 5 et 6 novembre 2014, à Québec

    Certification – Module 1 : Les rôles et responsabilités des administrateurs |  12, 13 et 14 février 2015, à Québec, et 26, 27 et 28 mars 2015, à Montréal

     

    Les événements en gouvernance auxquels le CAS est associé

     

    Inscription au programme « Réseau jeunes administrateurs » pour la cohorte d’automne | 8 septembre 2014, à Montréal

    Congrès national de l’IAS sur la gouvernance transformationnelle et Gala des Fellows | 18 septembre 2014, à Montréal

    Assemblée générale annuelle du Cercle des ASC et conférence « Un CA peut-il être trop avant-gardiste » par Mme Anne Darche, ASC | 23 septembre 2014, à Québec

    Conférence Prestige de l’Ordre des CPA du Québec, « Leadership éthique au 21e siècle » par Mme Cynthia Cooper | 1er octobre 2014, à Montréal

    Conférence Femmes Leaders par Les Affaires | 15 octobre 2014, à Québec

    Programme de l’ecoDa « New Governance Challenges for Board Members in Europe » | 21 et 22 octobre 2014, à Bruxelles

    NOMINATIONS ASC

     

    Serge Bouchard, ASC | Conseil régional de l’environnement du Centre-du-Québec

    Marlène Deveaux, ASC | CLD Saguenay

    Sylvie Tremblay, ASC | Chambre des notaires du Québec

    Richard Audet, ASC | Inforoute Santé du Canada

    Marc Duchesne, ASC | Nicorp inc.

    Vincent Dagnault, ASC | Signes d’Espoir

    Annick Mongeau, ASC | Groupe TVA inc.

    Jean-François Thuot, ASC | Société canadienne des directeurs d’association, section du Québec

    Sylvain Beaudry, ASC | Institut québécois de planification financière

    Lyne Laverdure, ASC | PharmaBio Développement

    Louise Dostie, ASC | Caisse de l’Administration et des Services publics

    Pauline D’Amboise, ASC | Solidarité rurale du Québec

    Jean-Paul Gagné, ASC | Metix inc.

    Denis Arcand, ASC | Caisse Desjardins Brossard

    Josée De La Durantaye, ASC | Ordre des comptables professionnels agréés du Québec

    Michel Verreault, ASC | Chambre des notaires du Québec

    Michel Sanschagrin, ASC | Fondation des Violons du Roy et Club musical de Québec

    Carl Viel, ASC | Palais Montcalm

    Luc Séguin, ASC | Hydrocarbures Anticosti

    Anne Darche, ASC     | Groupe Germain Hospitalité et Groupe St-Hubert

     

    DISTINCTIONS ASC et formateurs

     

    Marie Lavigne, ASC | Chevalière de l’Ordre national du Québec

    Claude Béland, formateur au CAS | Grand officier de l’Ordre national du Québec

    Maurice Gosselin, ASC     | Prix du ministre accordé par le ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de la Science

    Boîte à outils pour administrateurs

     

    Nouvelle référence mensuelle en gouvernance : Rémunération des administrateurs et gouvernance : enjeux et défis, par l’IGOPP.

    La capsule d’expert du mois – NOUVEAUTÉ : Les médias sociaux, par Sylvain Lafrance.

    Top 5 des billets les plus consultés cet été (juin, juillet et août) du blogue Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé.

     

    Bonne lecture !

    ____________________________________________

    Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS)

    Faculté des sciences de l’administration Pavillon Palasis-Prince

    2325, rue de la Terrasse, Université Laval Québec (Québec) G1V 0A6

    418 656-2630; 418 656-2624

    info@cas.ulaval.ca

     

    Contribution des administrateurs externes à la vision des entreprises


    Michael Evans, l’auteur de ce court article publié dans Forbes, montre les nombreux avantages des entreprises (jeunes, petites, familiales, entrepreneuriales …) à recruter un ou quelques administrateurs externes au conseil d’administration.

    Les administrateurs externes doivent être judicieusement choisis afin de compter sur leurs expériences du domaine d’affaires ainsi que sur leurs capacités à exposer plus de perspective et de vision.

    L’auteur présente également les quatre rôles fondamentaux que les administrateurs externes peuvent contribuer à clarifier.

    Voici un extrait de la première partie de l’article. Bonne lecture !

    Outside Board Members Bring Needed Experience And Perspective To Your Company

     

    Middle-market companies often operate as small fiefdoms under the control of the king, or to use a business term, the CEO. Very few mid-sized companies have a formal board of directors and for those that do have boards, CEOs tend to populate them with family, friends, and internal management. The theory is that board members do not know the business of the company, cost too much, and often do not provide value. In some cases, those conclusions are often true. But in many cases, the establishment of an effective board and the inclusion of outside board members have saved many a company from ruin.

    It is estimated that less than 5 percent of middle-market companies have an established board or advisory board, the primary reason for such a low percentage is that small- and middle-market businesses believe they are smart enough not to need a board, think it is too expensive, or believe it would constrain their decision-making abilities.

    female outside board member

    With the demands on CEOs — including ongoing regulatory changes, pressure from family and other founders, the rise of new competitors and business models, and the need to transform businesses at an ever-quickening pace — it may be time for you to get some help and add an outside director to your board.

    Outside directors bring outside experience and perspective to the board. They keep a watchful eye on the inside directors and on the way the organization is run, and provide guidance as to risk management and good corporate governance practices. Outside directors are often useful in handling disputes between inside directors, or between shareholders and the board.

    Dix pratiques exemplaires à l’intention des membres de comités d’audit


    Vous trouverez ci-dessous un article publié par Naomi Snyder* dans BankDirector.com qui présente une synthèse des caractéristiques des comités d’audit performants dans le domaine bancaire.

    Bien sûr, ces pratiques peuvent aussi s’appliquer à tout autre comité d’audit. Bonne lecture !

    10 Best Practices for Audit Committee Members

    Serving on the audit committee can be one of the toughest jobs on the board, which is why audit committee members often are paid more than what members of other committees receive. Audit committee members have more duties than ever before, thanks to heightened regulatory scrutiny that banks have received in recent years, and are under more pressure than ever to get it right.

    Sal Inserra, a partner at accounting and advisory firm Crowe Horwath LLP, spoke at Bank Director’s Bank Audit Committee Conference in Chicago recently, and laid out some of the qualities of highly functioning audit committee members. This is not his list, but was created based on his talk.

    1. Be a skeptic.
      “If you notice inconsistencies, ask the question,’’ Inserra said. “It’s not necessarily wrong. You are just trying to find out.”
    2. Understand your business.
      If you enter a new business line, you must understand that new line of business. Trust departments present banks with a minefield of compliance issues, for example.
    3. Meet with regulators.
      Examiners are more likely now to have a discussion with board members than years past. Regulators are interested in learning about the audit committee’s understanding of the risks in the organization. Attend some meetings with examiners to get a flavor for the bank’s relationship with its regulators and to prepare you for any problems ahead of time.6-28-13_Naomi_Article.png
    4. Support the internal audit department and its findings.
      Make sure the department is adequately funded and staffed. “I have seen way too many situations where internal audit was not a functional unit of the bank because no one respected them,’’ Inserra said. The internal audit chief should report directly to the audit committee chairman.
    5. Look for red flags.
      Red flags include when management delivers the audit committee book without sufficient time for members to digest it before the audit committee meetings. Other red flags include problematic findings that remain unaddressed between audits.
    6. Take control of the audit committee meetings.
      Don’t let management control the meeting agenda by burying you under a mountain of detail. It’s your meeting. Put the priorities at the beginning of the meeting, instead of starting with the easiest things. Get summaries of reports with the most important points highlighted. Who can read a 600 page audit in two nights?
    7. Make sure every member is contributing.
      Three to six people should serve on the audit committee. If it’s politically problematic to remove someone who is no longer contributing, add people you do need on the audit committee.
    8. Hold management accountable.
      Actively monitor management’s action plans. If remediation plans aren’t followed or completed on time, why not?
    9. Communicate with internal and external auditors.
      Be proactive. Have executive sessions with members of the internal auditing staff on a regular basis, as well as with external auditors.
    10. Improve the committee’s knowledge of technology by recruiting an IT expert to be a member, or hire a consultant to advise the board.
      If you are getting third party reports on your bank’s information security you don’t fully understand, then you need help.

    Of course, there are many more aspects of being a great audit committee member. This is just a small sample. But at a time when audit committees have an increasing amount of responsibilities, it is important that the audit committee performs at the top of its game.

    ______________________________________________

    *Naomi Snyder is the managing editor for Bank Director, an information resource for directors and officers of financial companies.

    Enquête 2014 sur le leadership du conseil d’administration | Korn Ferry


    Ce billet publié par Robert E. Hallagan et Dennis Carey, vice-présidents de Korn Ferry, présente une partie d’une étude conduite par l’Institut Korn Ferry portant sur le leadership du C.A.

    On constatera que la séparation des fonctions de président du conseil et de président et chef de la direction s’effectue lentement chez nos voisins du sud ! En effet, bien que tous les experts de la gouvernance reconnaissent le bien fondé d’avoir un président du conseil indépendant, on note un certain progrès à cet égard mais il y a encore loin de la coupe aux lèvres, surtout dans les grandes entreprises cotées aux ÉU.

    Voici un aperçu de l’introduction de cette étude. Je vous invite à lire le document complet pour avoir une meilleure idée des résultats de l’enquête. Bonne lecture !

    Survey of Board Leadership 2014

    This is our second annual report on board leadership.

    The numbers and trends are interesting but the subtleties and substance behind them are extremely valuable as the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) and Korn Ferry continue their study of high-performing boards. The thoughtful selection and performance of board leaders is one of two pillars of leadership that drive long-term shareholder value—the other being the CEO of the company.IMG_00000694

    There is universal agreement that each board must have an independent leader but how each company has achieved this takes many shapes.

    In this year’s report, we see continued evidence of a slow and deliberate trend toward separation of the roles, higher in mid-cap companies than the large-cap S&P 500. Key catalysts included activism, and a transition of CEO leadership that prompted the board to elect to separate the roles.

    …

    There is universal agreement that each board must have an independent leader but how each company has achieved this takes many shapes.

    In our first report we stated our commitment to remaining an honest broker of facts in the performance debate. Many proponents of separation claim it will enhance long-term shareholder value, yet no study to date has rendered conclusive evidence in either direction. We have now isolated companies that have made the change, documented their performance before and after, and will soon be comfortable debating the results. While we clearly understand the danger in relying solely on numbers and acknowledge that there are many potential ways to slice the data, we believe our attempt to get at the “facts” will generate engaged, healthy debate among our members and clients. We look forward to a rich dialogue at NACD conferences to come.

    Methodology and approach

    This study examined changes to and trends in board leadership structure for 900 US companies, namely the constituents of Standard & Poor’s Large Cap 500 Index (S&P 500) and the Mid-Cap Index (the S&P 400) as of December 31, 2012. Companies are added to the S&P 500 if they have unadjusted market capitalization of $4.6 billion or more, and to the S&P 400 if they have unadjusted market capitalization of between $1.2 billion and $5.1 billion. The S&P 500 Index represents a barometer of the state of the largest publicly traded US corporations, and the majority of the research and analysis in this study focuses on this group. To expand the scope beyond large-cap companies, and thus broaden the findings of the research, the constituents of the S&P 400 were also examined in detail.

    For each company, we looked at the type of board leadership structure in place at the time of its proxy filing for each year between 2008 and 2012. This report focuses primarily on the leadership structure in place as of year-end 2012, and examines each company’s overall leadership approach as it pertains to the roles of chairman, CEO, and lead director (if at all). Proxy filings, annual reports, and the corporate governance section of company websites comprise the source documents for these determinations. Please note that numbers shown in this report reflect actual statistics and not data projected from a random sampling of companies.

    In addition, each company that had a change in its leadership structure since January 1, 2003 (by replacing either the CEO or chairman) was investigated to understand the reason for the change, and additional details—such as tenure, age, education, committee responsibilities—were sought for the incoming chairman. Company and outside press reports and news articles were used to determine the reason for an executive’s departure, and executive biographical and company data were culled from secondary sources, including Reuters, Businessweek, MarketWatch, and Morningstar.

    The trend to separate roles continues to move steadily forward.

    Though board composition is not likely to be an area marked by rapid, significant change, the slow and steady trend to separate chairman and CEO roles continued in 2012. By the end of 2012, 56% of S&P 500 chairmen also held the position of CEO. This marks a significant departure from 2009, when 63% of all chairmen also held the company’s highest executive office. The change comes almost equally from increases in non-executive chairmen and chairmen who have some past affiliation with the company; additional analysis in this report will examine what types of companies are likely to favor the different approaches.

    fig1Click image to enlarge

    While it is reasonable to expect this gradual trend to continue, particularly as activist shareholders keep pushing for separation, some large companies, including IBM, Disney, and Urban Outfitters, are moving in the opposite direction and are recombining roles. In the case of IBM and Disney, the recombinations are part of longterm succession, though IBM Chairman-CEO Ginny Rometty added the Chairman role just 10 months after becoming CEO—faster than many expected. In the case of Urban Outfitters, founder Richard Hayne reclaimed the CEO role after his successor had difficulty maintaining the main brand’s appeal to young people. Our continued perspective is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to board leadership and that careful analysis and trusted advisors should be leveraged to find the appropriate structure for each organization.

    In our opinion, chairmen must meet several criteria to qualify as truly “non-executive” or independent. They must not currently hold an executive role (CEO or other), must not be former executives, and must not be founders or family members of founders. From time to time, companies may characterize these types of chairmen as “non-executive” in the language of their proxy reports or even in the chairman’s title, but our analysis re-characterizes them per the criteria above. The idea of an independent chairman is that he or she can bring an impartial and objective perspective to the board, and our experience finds that founders, family members of founders, and former executives tend not to possess that objectivity. This particular debate on nomenclature is a classic case of saying it doesn’t make it so. Being independent in title is not necessarily a reflection of reality. An analysis of the types of chairmen found in the S&P 500 in 2012 is described in Figure 2.

    The trend toward separation of the chairman and CEO has been more pronounced over time within the mid-cap companies in the S&P 400 than it has been in the S&P 500. Separation rates in both groups rose by two points in 2012, to 44% in the S&P 500 and 55% in the S&P 400.

    ….

    Le point de vue sans équivoque de l’activiste Carl Icahn


    Depuis quelques années, on parle souvent d’activistes, d’actionnaires activistes, d’investisseurs activistes ou de Hedge Funds pour qualifier la philosophie de ceux qui veulent assainir la gouvernance des entreprises et redonner une place prépondérante aux « actionnaires-propriétaires » !

    Pour ceux qui sont intéressés à connaître le point de vue et les arguments d’un actionnaire activiste célèbre, je vous invite à lire l’article écrit par Carl Icahn le 22 août sur son site Shareholders’ Square Table (SST).

    Vous aurez ainsi une très bonne idée de cette nouvelle approche à la gouvernance qui fait rage depuis quelque temps.

    Je vous invite aussi à lire l’article de Icahn qui s’insurge contre la position de Warren Buffet de ne pas intervenir dans la décision de la rémunération globale « excessive » à Coke, suivi de la réponse de Buffet.

    My article from Barron’s on Warren Buffett’s abstention from a vote on Coke’s executive-pay plan

    À vous de vous former une opinion sur ce sujet ! Bonne lecture !

    The Bottom Line | Carl Icahn

    Among other things, I’m known to be a “reductionist.”  In my line of work you must be good at pinpointing what to focus on – that is, the major underlying truths and problems in a situation.  I then become obsessive about solving or fixing whatever they may be. This combination is what perhaps has lead to my success over the years and is why I’ve chosen to be so outspoken about shareholder activism, corporate governance issues, and the current economic state of America. IMG00570-20100828-2239

    Currently, I believe that the facts “reduce” to one indisputable truth which is that we must change our system of selecting CEOs in order to stay competitive and get us out of an extremely dangerous financial situation.  With exceptions, I believe that too many companies in this country are terribly run and there’s no system in place to hold the CEOs and Boards of these inadequately managed companies accountable. There are numerous challenges we are facing today whether it be monetary policy, unemployment, income inequality, the list can go on and on… but the thing we have to remember is there is something we can do about it: Shareholders, the true owners of our companies, can demand that mediocre CEOs are held accountable and make it clear that they will be replaced if they are failing.

    I am convinced by our record that this will make our corporations much more productive and profitable and will go a long way in helping to solve our unemployment problems and the other issues now ailing our economy.

    …….

    Pourquoi nommer un administrateur indépendant comme président du conseil


    Plusieurs se questionnent sur les raisons qui expliquent l’importance de choisir un administrateur indépendant comme président du conseil, même dans les entreprises dont le fondateur possède le contrôle.

    Le court article de  paru dans itbusiness le 25 août 2014 montre les avantages réels à se doter d’une gouvernance exemplaire.

    Voici, selon l’auteur,  neuf points à considérer dans le choix de cette option. Bonne lecture !

    1. Increased share price on acquisition
    2. Investor due diligence is smoother
    3. Greater interest in follow-on investment rounds
    4. Increased transparency through supplying shareholder information
    5. Increased accountability of management
    6. Stronger risk and crisis management policies
    7. Stronger customer acquisition process resulted from customers’ appreciation that the company is stronger than its individual executives.
    8. Competitors take notice of the seriousness of your company’s approach
    9. Creates environment for innovative change

    The use of a non-executive chairperson for a private corporation, including early and growth stage companies, allows the company to start acting as if the company is structured for success and is serious about its responsibilities to shareholders, customers, and staff.

    9 reasons to name a non-executive chairperson to your board

    It is natural for entrepreneurs and founders to want to control the destiny of their company. Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are often cited as examples of why a founder should stay in control.

    In this example, Zuckerberg owned less than 30 per cent of Facebook; however, he maintained a controlling vote through multiple voting rights. These voting rights enabled him to singlehandedly buy Instagram for over $1 billion without board approval.IMG_00000884

    Some entrepreneurial observers may say that this is a good thing. Others who have been schooled in corporate governance would suggest too much power rested in one shareholder’s hands, and one who holds less than 50 per cent of the equity of the company. This example of a lack of corporate governance points a founder in the direction of how a private company and its strategic direction should be directed and controlled, while maintaining the vision the founders had when they formed the company.

    When a company accepts equity investment from outside shareholders, the shareholders have an expectation that their rights will be protected by the board of directors. For a growth stage company, these many responsibilities become burdensome. I agree with most founders that their primary responsibility is to drive product development and acquire profitable customers. A founder who is both comfortable with and understands the alignment of the vision and strategic direction should be comfortable handing off some of the leadership responsibilities that guide the company.

    Best practices of corporate governance for a public company separate the role of CEO of the company and the chairperson of the board of directors, often referred to as the non-executive chairperson or lead director. Under this structure, the CEO manages the affairs of the company under the direction of the board, and the governance structure or board of directors and its members are managed by the non-executive chairperson. Many founders are concerned with a loss of control in this structure; however, they need not be. With a strong selection process that was developed from a skills matrix, and a desire to have open and regular communication between the two roles, the company should be positioned for success.

    ….