Top 10 des billets publiés sur Harvard Law School Forum au 14 janvier 2021


Voici le compte rendu hebdomadaire du forum de la Harvard Law School sur la gouvernance corporative au 17 décembre 2020.

Cette semaine, j’ai relevé les dix principaux billets.

Bonne lecture !

 

Top Dix Bouton D & # 39 ; Or Vecteur Clip Art Libres De Droits , Vecteurs Et Illustration. Image 84625131.

 

  1. The New Paradigm in the C-Suite and the Boardroom
  2. A Letter to the SEC Chairman
  3. Corporate Governance Survey — 2020 Proxy Season Results
  4. Congress Passes the “Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act”
  5. Where Things Stand at the End of 2020
  6. Report on Practices for Virtual Shareholder Meetings
  7. COVID-19’s Impact on Buyer’s Obligation to Close
  8. BlackRock’s 2021 Proxy Voting Guidelines Prioritize ESG Actions
  9. Allegations of Human Rights Violations and Other Litigation Trends
  10. Compensation Season 2021

La politique de gouvernance de BlackRock en 2021


Each January, BlackRock typically previews its stewardship priorities in CEO Larry Fink’s annual letter to portfolio companies, followed soon thereafter by updated proxy voting guidelines. Given BlackRock’s position as the world’s largest asset manager, with nearly $8 trillion in assets under management, companies are prepared for this typical release of information. But as one more oddity of 2020, BlackRock is front-running its traditional proxy priority roll-out with yesterday’s release of a “2021 Stewardship Expectations” document that signals significant shifts in BlackRock’s priorities and approach, coupled with “Proxy Voting Guidelines” issued yesterday, to be effective January 2021. These holiday season gifts include a number of takeaways for public companies, a few of which we highlight below.

Support for More Shareholder Proposals

Perhaps most eye-catching is BlackRock signaling an increased willingness to vote against companies in the coming year, whether in respect of shareholder proposals or in director elections. This is a significant shift with regard to shareholder proposals. BlackRock writes: “We see voting on shareholder proposals playing an increasingly important role in our stewardship efforts around sustainability. Accordingly, where we agree with the intent of a shareholder proposal addressing a material business risk, and if we determine that management could do better in managing and disclosing that risk, we will support the proposal. We may also support a proposal if management is on track, but we believe that voting in favor might accelerate their progress,” going on to note that supporting shareholder proposals significantly increases the likelihood of a company implementing the requested actions. Later, they write “Where our analysis and engagement indicate a need for improvement in a company’s approach to an issue, we will support shareholder proposals that are reasonable and not unduly constraining to management.”

Efficacy of Votes Against Director

It is also likely BlackRock will be marginally more demanding with other votes against a company, particularly on directors. BlackRock evaluated the “effectiveness” of its votes against and found that voting against directors was an effective way to cause change. They evaluated the effect of votes against directors over compensation concerns in FTSE 350 and found that the underlying concerns were substantively addressed by 83% of companies where they voted against a director the prior year. They also found that votes against U.S. directors for gender diversity concerns led 41% of companies to improve board diversity the following year. The use of these statistics is a clear message from BlackRock: it believes that voting against directors is effective.

Additional Highlights of 2021 Guidelines—The following bullets briefly highlight certain themes reflected in BlackRock’s proxy voting policies.

    • Heightened attention to board ethnic and gender diversity, including disclosure of diversity characteristics, specifically EEO-1 reports;
    • New attention to board tenure, using average tenure to “evaluate processes for board renewal” and potentially opposing boards that “appear to have an insufficient mix of short-, medium-, and long-tenured directors—though not explicitly linked, companies should expect that BlackRock will look for board refreshment that is aimed at meeting BlackRock’s desired diversity standards;
    • Increased focus on management compensation, including a new preference for annual Say-on-Pay votes, with the explicit warning that if a “company has failed to align pay with performance”, BlackRock will vote against the management compensation proposal and consider voting against the compensation committee members;
    • Requirement that companies disclose plans for how “their business model will be compatible with a low-carbon economy,” specifically a scenario (a) in which global warming is limited to well below 2 degrees Celsius and (b) consistent with an aspiration to reach net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 (which may be a difficult lift for some industries);
    • Support of enhanced political activity disclosure, which includes monitoring trade associations in which a company is an active member to ensure consistency with a company’s public statements on key policy issues, including sustainability; and
    • “More holistic commentary on our approach to natural capital,” including expectations on water and energy scarcity, promoting biodiversity, and counteracting deforestation.

BlackRock also provides companies with some flexibility by clarifying that companies should no longer focus exclusively on shareholders; rather to maximize long-term value, BlackRock encourages companies to focus on stakeholders, including employees, business partners, clients, consumers, government and regulators and the communities in which companies operate—how BlackRock will measure this commitment is unclear.

Further, while this early release was unexpected, we urge our public company clients and friends to take advantage of this preview of BlackRock’s priorities to consider how they may be assessed under this new guidance and potentially consider modifications to adapt their approach ahead of proxy season.

Principes de gouvernance qui guident les investissements de BlackRock


BlackRock vient de publier sa position concernant les principes de gouvernance qui doivent guider ses investissements dans les sociétés de rang mondial.

BlackRock est une entreprise pionnière dans la divulgation des critères qu’elle prend en compte avant d’investir dans les organisations. C’est pour cette raison que toutes les personnes intéressées par les questions de gouvernance doivent être bien informées sur les grands principes qui soutiennent ses décisions.

Dans cet article publié par Sandra Boss, responsable mondiale de la gestion des investissements, Michelle Edkins, directrice générale du management des investissements et Shinbo Won, directeur du management des investissements chez BlackRock, inc., les auteurs présentent en détail les règles qui gouvernent les investissements de BlackRock.

Celles-ci sont considérées comme le « Gold standard » dans le monde de la gouvernance.

L’article ci-joint présente la philosophie de placement de l’organisation, ainsi que les principes qui recouvrent les sept thèmes suivants :

    • Conseils et administrateurs
    • Auditeurs et problèmes liés à l’audit
    • Structure du capital, fusions, ventes d’actifs et autres transactions spéciales
    • Rémunération et avantages
    • Problèmes environnementaux et sociaux
    • Questions générales de gouvernance d’entreprise et protection des actionnaires
    • Propositions d’actionnaires

Dans ce billet, je fais référence au premier thème, celui portant sur les principes devant guider la gouvernance des entreprises, notamment les questions relatives à la gouvernance et à la composition des conseils d’administration.

Pour en connaître davantage sur les autres principes, je vous invite à lire l’article au complet.

Bonne lecture !

BlackRock Investment Stewardship Global Principles

 

BlackRock assets reach $7.32T as crisis drives record investments | Fox Business

 

The purpose of this post is to provide an overarching explanation of BlackRock’s approach globally to our responsibilities as a shareholder on behalf of our clients, our expectations of companies, and our commitments to clients in terms of our own governance and transparency.

Introduction to BlackRock

BlackRock’s purpose is to help more and more people experience financial well-being. We manage assets on behalf of institutional and individual clients, across a full spectrum of investment strategies, asset classes, and regions. Our client base includes pension plans, endowments, foundations, charities, official institutions, insurers, and other financial institutions, as well as individuals around the world. As part of our fiduciary duty to our clients, we have determined that it is generally in the best long-term interest of our clients to promote sound corporate governance through voting as an informed, engaged shareholder. This is the responsibility of the Investment Stewardship Team.

Philosophy on investment stewardship

Companies are responsible for ensuring they have appropriate governance structures to serve the interests of shareholders and other key stakeholders. We believe that there are certain fundamental rights attached to shareholding. Companies and their boards should be accountable to shareholders and structured with appropriate checks and balances to ensure that they operate in shareholders’ best interests to create sustainable value. Shareholders should have the right to vote to elect, remove, and nominate directors, approve the appointment of the auditor, and amend the corporate charter or by-laws. Shareholders should be able to vote on matters that are material to the protection of their investment, including but not limited to, changes to the purpose of the business, dilution levels and pre-emptive rights, and the distribution of income and capital structure. In order to make informed decisions, we believe that shareholders have the right to sufficient and timely information. In addition, shareholder voting rights should be proportionate to their economic ownership—the principle of “one share, one vote” helps achieve this balance.

Consistent with these shareholder rights, we believe BlackRock has a responsibility to monitor and provide feedback to companies, in our role as stewards of our clients’ investments. BlackRock Investment Stewardship (“BIS”) does this through engagement with management teams and/or board members on material business issues including environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) matters and, for those clients who have given us authority, through voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of our clients. We also participate in the public debate to shape global norms and industry standards with the goal of a policy framework consistent with our clients’ interests as long-term shareholders.

BlackRock looks to companies to provide timely, accurate, and comprehensive reporting on all material governance and business matters, including ESG issues. This allows shareholders to appropriately understand and assess how relevant risks and opportunities are being effectively identified and managed. Where company reporting and disclosure is inadequate or the approach taken is inconsistent with our view of what supports sustainable long-term value creation, we will engage with a company and/or use our vote to encourage a change in practice.

BlackRock views engagement as an important activity; engagement provides us with the opportunity to improve our understanding of the business and ESG risks and opportunities that are material to the companies in which our clients invest. As long-term investors on behalf of clients, we seek to have regular and continuing dialogue with executives and board directors to advance sound governance and sustainable business practices, as well as to understand the effectiveness of the company’s management and oversight of material issues. Engagement is an important mechanism for providing feedback on company practices and disclosures, particularly where we believe they could be enhanced. We primarily engage through direct dialogue but may use other tools such as written correspondence to share our perspectives. Engagement also informs our voting decisions.

We vote in support of management and boards where and to the extent they demonstrate an approach consistent with creating sustainable long-term value. If we have concerns about a company’s approach, we may choose to engage to explain our expectations. Where we consider that a company has failed to address one or more material issues within an appropriate timeframe, we may hold directors accountable or take other voting actions to signal our concerns. We apply our voting guidelines to achieve the outcome we believe is most aligned with our clients’ long-term economic interests.

Key themes

We recognize that accepted standards and norms of corporate governance differ between markets; however, there are sufficient common threads globally to identify this overarching set of principles (the “Principles”) which are anchored in transparency and accountability. At a minimum, we expect companies to observe the accepted corporate governance standards in their domestic market or to explain why not doing so supports sustainable long-term value creation.

Our regional and market-specific voting guidelines explain how these Principles inform our voting decisions in relation to specific ballot items for shareholder meetings.

These Principles cover seven key themes:

  • Boards and directors
  • Auditors and audit-related issues
  • Capital structure, mergers, asset sales, and other special transactions
  • Compensation and benefits
  • Environmental and social issues
  • General corporate governance matters and shareholder protections
  • Shareholder proposals

Boards and directors

The performance of the board is critical to the economic success of the company and the protection of shareholders’ interests. As part of their responsibilities, board members owe fiduciary duties to shareholders in overseeing the strategic direction and operation of the company. For this reason, BlackRock focuses on directors in many of our engagements and sees the election of directors as one of our most important responsibilities in the proxy voting context.

We support boards whose approach is consistent with creating sustainable long-term value. This includes the effective management of strategic, operational, and material ESG factors and the consideration of key stakeholder interests. Our primary focus is on the performance of the board of directors. The board should establish and maintain a framework of robust and effective governance mechanisms to support its oversight of the company’s strategic aims. We look to the board to articulate the effectiveness of these mechanisms in overseeing the management of business risks and opportunities and the fulfillment of the company’s purpose. Disclosure of material issues that affect the company’s long-term strategy and value creation, including material ESG factors, is essential for shareholders to be able to appropriately understand and assess how the board is effectively identifying, managing, and mitigating risks.

Where a company has not adequately disclosed and demonstrated these responsibilities, we will consider withholding our support for the re-election of directors whom we hold accountable. We assess director performance on a case-by-case basis and in light of each company’s particular circumstances, taking into consideration our assessment of their governance, sustainable business practices, and performance. In serving the interests of shareholders, the responsibility of the board of directors includes, but is not limited to, the following:

– Establishing an appropriate corporate governance structure

– Supporting and overseeing management in setting long-term strategic goals, applicable measures of value-creation and milestones that will demonstrate progress, and steps taken if any obstacles are anticipated or incurred

– Providing oversight on the identification and management of material, business operational and sustainability-related risks

– Overseeing the financial resilience of the company, the integrity of financial statements, and the robustness of a company’s Enterprise Risk Management [1] frameworks

– Making decisions on matters that require independent evaluation which may include mergers, acquisitions and disposals, activist situations or other similar cases

– Establishing appropriate executive compensation structures

– Addressing business issues, including environmental and social issues, when they have the potential to materially impact the company’s long-term value

There should be clear definitions of the role of the board, the committees of the board and senior management. We set out below ways in which boards and directors can demonstrate a commitment to acting in the best interests of long-term shareholders. We will seek to engage with the appropriate directors where we have concerns about the performance of the company, board, or individual directors. As noted above, we believe that when a company is not effectively addressing a material issue, its directors should be held accountable.

Regular accountability

BlackRock believes that directors should stand for re-election on a regular basis, ideally annually. In our experience, annual re-elections allow shareholders to reaffirm their support for board members or hold them accountable for their decisions in a timely manner. When board members are not re-elected annually, we believe it is good practice for boards to have a rotation policy to ensure that, through a board cycle, all directors have had their appointment re-confirmed, with a proportion of directors being put forward for re-election at each annual general meeting.

Effective board composition

Regular director elections also give boards the opportunity to adjust their composition in an orderly way to reflect the evolution of the company’s strategy and the market environment. BlackRock believes it is beneficial for new directors to be brought onto the board periodically to refresh the group’s thinking and in a manner that supports both continuity and appropriate succession planning. We expect companies to keep under regular review the effectiveness of its board (including its size), and assess directors nominated for election or re-election in the context of the composition of the board as a whole. This assessment should consider a number of factors, including the potential need to address gaps in skills or experience, the diversity of the board, and the balance of independent and non-independent directors. We also consider the average tenure of the overall board, where we are seeking a balance between the knowledge and experience of longer-serving members and the fresh perspectives of newer members.

When nominating new directors to the board, there should be detailed information on the individual candidates in order for shareholders to assess the suitability of an individual nominee and the overall board composition. These disclosures should give a clear sense of how the collective experience and expertise of the board aligns with the company’s long-term strategy and business model. We also expect disclosures to demonstrate how diversity is accounted for within the proposed board composition, including demographic factors such as gender, ethnicity, and age; as well as professional characteristics, such as a director’s industry experience, specialist areas of expertise, and geographic location.

We expect there to be a sufficient number of independent directors, free from conflicts of interest or undue influence from connected parties, to ensure objectivity in the decision-making of the board and its ability to oversee management.

Common impediments to independence may include but are not limited to:

  • Current or recent employment at the company or a subsidiary
  • Being, or representing, a shareholder with a substantial shareholding in the company
  • Interlocking directorships
  • Having any other interest, business, or other relationship which could, or could reasonably be perceived to, materially interfere with a director’s ability to act in the best interests of the company

BlackRock believes that the board is able to fulfill its fiduciary duty when there is a clearly independent, senior non-executive director to chair it or, where the chairman is also the CEO (or is otherwise not independent), a lead independent l director. The role of this director is to enhance the effectiveness of the independent members of the board through shaping the agenda, ensuring adequate information is provided to the board and encouraging independent participation in board deliberations. The lead independent director or another appropriate director should be available to shareholders in those situations where an independent director is best placed to explain and justify a company’s approach.

There are matters for which the board has responsibility that may involve a conflict of interest for executives or for affiliated directors. BlackRock believes that objective oversight of such matters is best achieved when the board forms committees comprised entirely of independent directors. In many markets, these committees of the board specialize in audit, director nominations and compensation matters. An ad hoc committee might also be formed to decide on a special transaction, particularly one involving a related party, or to investigate a significant adverse event.

Sufficient capacity

As the role of a director is demanding, directors must be able to commit an appropriate amount of time to board and committee matters. It is important that every director has the capacity to meet all of his/her responsibilities—including when there are unforeseen events—and therefore, he/she should not take on an excessive number of roles that would impair his/her ability to fulfill his/her duties.

Nouvelles préoccupations des conseils d’administration en réponse à la pandémie mondiale


Comment les conseils d’administration s’ajustent-ils aux chocs de la pandémie ? C’est ce que Holly J. Gregory, associée chez Sidley Austin LLP, a exploré dans son enquête auprès des corporations américaines.

Je vous invite à lire la version française de l’introduction de la publication, en utilisant l’outil de traduction de Google, lequel est certainement perfectible.

Bonne lecture !

À l’ère de turbulences économiques accrues, de troubles sociaux et de pandémie de COVID-19, les conseils d’administration des entreprises cotées ont dû explorer de nouvelles avenues en réponse aux risques émergents.

Des tendances interdépendantes sont apparues, notamment :

    • Un regain d’intérêt pour la raison d’être de l’entreprise dans la société, y compris son rôle dans la fourniture de biens et services qui répond aux besoins de base, ainsi que dans l’innovation.
    • Un déplacement de la primauté des actionnaires vers les intérêts d’un plus large éventail de parties prenantes.
    • Un intérêt croissant pour les questions environnementales, sociales et de gouvernance (ESG), en particulier le rôle de l’entreprise dans la résolution des problèmes sociaux, y compris les questions d’égalité raciale, de genre et de justice sociale.
    • Un accent accru sur la valeur du capital humain et les changements connexes dans la nature du travail et du lieu de travail.
    • Le potentiel de reconfiguration considérable des industries et des modèles d’affaires, ce qui soulève des inquiétudes quant à la continuité des activités.

Ces tendances façonneront l’orientation et les priorités du conseil d’administration en 2021. Bien que les priorités distinctives et leur importance varient d’un conseil à l’autre en fonction de circonstances uniques auxquelles l’entreprise est confrontée, les principaux domaines d’intervention sont susceptibles d’inclure :

    • Objectif de l’entreprise et questions environnementales, sociales et de gouvernance (ESG),
    • Questions relatives au capital humain, à la main-d’œuvre et à la culture
    • Planification stratégique pour une valeur durable à long terme
    • Délégation de la direction, performance, succession et rémunération
    • Engagement et activisme des actionnaires
    • Gestion des risques, préparation aux crises et conformité
    • Composition du conseil et planification de la relève

La majorité du temps du conseil devrait être réservée à la discussion de la stratégie d’entreprise et à l’évaluation de la qualité du rendement de la direction, y compris l’accent mis par la direction sur la continuité des activités, les opportunités et les risques.

Preparing for 2021: Staring into the abyss of uncertainty or planning for resilience?

Top 10 des billets publiés sur Harvard Law School Forum au 26 novembre 2020


 

Voici le compte rendu hebdomadaire du forum de la Harvard Law School sur la gouvernance corporative au 26 novembre 2020.

Cette semaine, j’ai relevé les dix principaux billets.

Bonne lecture !

 

Ericsson jolts the FCPA top ten list | The FCPA Blog

 

  1. Acquisition Experience and Director Remuneration
  2. Russell 3000 Database of Executive Compensation Changes in Response to COVID-19
  3. Risks of Back-Channel Communications with a Controller
  4. Cyber: New Challenges in a COVID-19–Disrupted World
  5. Varieties of Shareholderism: Three Views of the Corporate Purpose Cathedral
  6. ISS Releases New Benchmark Policies for 2021
  7. Why Have CEO Pay Levels Become Less Diverse?
  8. The Department of Labor’s ESG-less Final ESG Rule
  9. SEC Adopts Rules to Modernize and Streamline Exempt Offerings
  10. EQT: Private Equity with a Purpose

Top 10 des billets publiés sur Harvard Law School Forum au 19 novembre 2020


Voici le compte rendu hebdomadaire du forum de la Harvard Law School sur la gouvernance corporative au 19 novembre 2020.

Cette semaine, j’ai relevé les dix principaux billets.

Bonne lecture !

 

Top ten list Stock Photos, Royalty Free Top ten list Images | Depositphotos®

 

  1. Decision Making in 50:50 Joint Ventures
  2. Delaware Reaffirms Director Independence Principle in Founder-Led Company
  3. Shareholders’ Rights & Shareholder Activism 2020
  4. ESG Management and Board Accountability
  5. Financial Institution Regulation Under President Biden
  6. Corporations in 100 Pages
  7. Racial Equity on the Board Agenda
  8. The Rise of the General Counsel
  9. Revealing ESG in Critical Audit Matters
  10. SEC Division of Enforcement 2020 Annual Report

Les actions des conseils d’administration en matière de diversité, d’équité et d’inclusion


Voici un article de Natalie Cooper et Robert Lamm, respectivement directrice principale et conseiller principal au Center for Board Effectiveness de Deloitte, et Randi Val Morrison, vice-président, Society for Corporate Governance. Cet article a été publié sur le site du Forum du Harvard Law School on Corporate Governance.

Je vous soumets une version française de la publication en utilisant l’outil de traduction de Google qui est certainement perfectible.

Les événements marquants de 2020 entourant le racisme systémique et l’égalité raciale ont conduit de nombreuses entreprises et leurs conseils d’administration à reconsidérer leurs pratiques liées à la diversité, l’équité et l’inclusion (IDE). Pour certains, les événements sont l’occasion de réévaluer et d’améliorer les pratiques actuelles ; pour d’autres, ils peuvent les inciter pour la première fois à explorer et à mettre en œuvre des actions et des pratiques pour faire progresser l’IDE, à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur de leurs organisations.

Cet article explore certaines façons dont les entreprises et les conseils d’administration ont réagi à ces événements récents et à d’autres pratiques axées sur la direction et le conseil d’administration concernant l’IDE. Il présente les résultats basés sur une enquête d’août 2020 auprès des membres, représentant plus de 200 entreprises, de la Society for Corporate Governance.

Nous nous attendons à ce que les résultats évoluent au fil du temps, d’autant plus qu’ils concernent non seulement la gouvernance d’entreprise, mais aussi une question de société, où les appels à l’action et au changement semblent se poursuivre et se multiplier.

Résultats

Les résultats ci-dessous concernent toutes les entreprises interrogées. Les répondants, principalement des secrétaires d’entreprise,
des conseillers juridiques internes, des conseillers externes et d’autres professionnels de la gouvernance, représentent 91 % de sociétés ouvertes et 9 % d’entreprises privées de différentes tailles de capitalisations boursières, de revenus annuels et d’industries. [1]

Le cas échéant, des commentaires ont été inclus pour mettre en évidence les différences entre les données démographiques des répondants. Le nombre réel de réponses pour chaque question est fourni.

Accédez aux résultats par taille et type d’entreprise.

Lequel des comités du conseil suivants (ou similaires), le cas échéant, supervise la fonction/stratégie de diversité et d’inclusion de votre entreprise ? Sélectionnez tout ce qui s’y rapporte. (172 réponses)

La délégation de ce domaine de surveillance au comité de rémunération ou au comité de nomination/gouvernance était la réponse la plus courante dans toutes les entreprises publiques, bien que près d’un quart de toutes les entreprises publiques (et 38 % des petites capitalisations) conservent la responsabilité au niveau du conseil d’administration. Parmi les entreprises privées, les réponses les plus courantes étaient la responsabilité de supervision au niveau du conseil d’administration complet ou « sans objet », à 36 % chacune.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Pasted-into-Board-Practices-Quarterly-Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion-5.png
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Pasted-into-Board-Practices-Quarterly-Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion-6.png

Quelles informations la direction fournit-elle au conseil sur les pratiques, la stratégie et les performances de l’entreprise en matière de diversité et d’inclusion ? Sélectionnez tout ce qui s’y rapporte. (159 réponses)

Parmi les sociétés ouvertes interrogées, 61 % ont déclaré que leur direction fournissait des mesures de diversité au conseil d’administration, contre 38 % des entreprises privées. En ce qui concerne les mesures d’inclusion, 41 % des entreprises publiques dans l’ensemble ont déclaré que leur conseil d’administration recevait ces informations, contre 38 % des entreprises privées interrogées. Pour les mesures de l’emploi, c’est environ un tiers pour les entreprises publiques et privées.

63 % Stratégie globale de diversité et d’inclusion et progrès par rapport à cette stratégie

59 % Mesures de diversité (p. ex., Leadership et représentation de la main-d’œuvre, stratégies de recrutement, diversité des clients, diversité des fournisseurs)

41 % Mesures d’inclusion (p. ex., Résultats des sondages d’engagement, résultats des entretiens de sortie)

33 % Mesures de l’emploi (p. ex., Rémunération et avantages sociaux, inégalités de promotion, inégalités d’attrition)

13 % Aucune information n’est fournie au conseil

3 % Autre

À quelle fréquence les questions liées à la diversité et à l’inclusion sont-elles à l’ordre du jour du conseil ? (160 réponses)

Le plus souvent, les sociétés ouvertes interrogées ont des questions liées à la diversité et à l’inclusion à l’ordre du jour de leur conseil « chaque année » (35 %) ; la réponse la plus courante pour les entreprises privées est « au besoin » (46 %). C’est un domaine qui peut évoluer et se normaliser au fil du temps à la lumière de l’accent renouvelé sur l’égalité raciale, ainsi que du fait que la plupart des entreprises se concentrent sur leur réponse à la pandémie, leur préservation et leur résilience.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Pasted-into-Board-Practices-Quarterly-Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion.png

Si les administrateurs/dirigeants de votre conseil d’administration ont choisi d’auto-identifier leur race/appartenance ethnique, veuillez cocher la case qui se rapproche le plus du pourcentage d’appartenance à un groupe racial ou ethnique minoritaire. (Réponses : 135 [board] ; 128 [c-suite])

Les répondants qui ont indiqué que leur conseil et leur direction avaient choisi de s’auto-identifier étaient respectivement de 64 % et 62 %. Parmi les sociétés ouvertes, respectivement 63 % et 61 % des membres du conseil et des dirigeants ont choisi de s’auto-identifier ; cela représentait 75 % du conseil d’administration et de la suite C pour les entreprises privées.

Parmi ceux de ceux qui ont choisi de répondre à la question, les réponses les plus courantes concernant le pourcentage de membres du conseil d’administration et/ou de membres de la direction appartenant à une minorité raciale/ethnique étaient :

Grandes capitalisations : 23 % ont déclaré jusqu’à 25 % du conseil d’administration ; 27 % ont dit jusqu’à 12 % de C-suite.

Mid caps : 23 % ont dit jusqu’à 25 % du conseil d’administration ; 33 % ont dit 0 % pour C-suite.

Petites capitalisations : 31 % ont déclaré jusqu’à 12 % du conseil d’administration ; 38 % ont dit 0 % pour C-suite.

Entreprises privées : 25 % ont dit jusqu’à 12 % et aussi jusqu’à 25 % du conseil d’administration ; 38 %

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Pasted-into-Board-Practices-Quarterly-Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion-3.png

Votre entreprise et/ou votre conseil d’administration ont-ils pris — ou ont-ils l’intention de prendre — des mesures en réponse aux événements récents entourant l’inégalité et l’iniquité raciales ? (194 réponses)

Selon tous les répondants, la plupart des entreprises et/ou leurs conseils d’administration ont pris ou ont l’intention de prendre des mesures en réponse aux événements récents entourant l’inégalité et l’iniquité raciales ; 71 % des entreprises publiques et 65 % des entreprises privées ont répondu par l’affirmative.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Pasted-into-Board-Practices-Quarterly-Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion-4.png

Laquelle des mesures suivantes votre entreprise et / ou votre conseil d’administration a-t-il prises – ou a l’intention de prendre – en réponse aux événements récents entourant l’inégalité et l’iniquité raciales? Sélectionnez tout ce qui s’y rapporte. (116 réponses)

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Pasted-into-Board-Practices-Quarterly-Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion-23.png
Publier une déclaration pour reconnaître publiquement les injustices raciales et / ou la position de l’entreprise sur la question
Envoi de communications internes de la direction, par exemple, le PDG, d’autres dirigeants ou des chefs d’unité commerciale
Prendre un engagement financier envers les organisations axées sur la justice raciale
Tenir une discussion ouverte et / ou un autre forum pour donner aux employés l’occasion de partager des informations et des expériences, de poser des questions, etc.
Établir un conseil sur la diversité et l’inclusion au niveau de la direction, un groupe consultatif et / ou un groupe d’affinité
Partenariat avec d’autres entreprises et organisations sur des initiatives axées sur la diversité, y compris le racisme systémique et l’inégalité raciale
Examiner / mettre à jour, si nécessaire, la composition du conseil, le recrutement et les pratiques de relève afin d’inclure un effort ciblé pour constituer un bassin de candidats diversifiés
Embaucher un chef de la diversité (ou un poste similaire), ou rehausser le rôle actuellement en place
Effectuer une évaluation pour comprendre les inégalités et préjugés raciaux potentiels, et pour comprendre les expériences de la main-d’œuvre noire et d’autres minorités
Établir ou améliorer la stratégie et les pratiques de diversité et d’inclusion à l’échelle de l’entreprise
Incluant au moins une minorité sous-représentée dans chaque liste de candidats pour chaque poste vacant ou poste d’un certain type au sein de l’effectif (alias «Rooney Rule»)
Établir de nouveaux objectifs d’embauche ou de promotion liés à la diversité des effectifs et de la direction
Examiner / mettre à jour, si nécessaire, les plans de relève de la direction afin d’inclure un effort ciblé pour constituer un bassin de candidats diversifiés
Lier la rémunération des dirigeants aux indicateurs et aux performances de la diversité et de l’inclusion
Établir des paramètres pour soutenir la responsabilité de la stratégie, de la performance et de l’exécution de la diversité et de l’inclusion
Établir de nouvelles politiques ou pratiques liées aux relations avec des tiers, par exemple, des politiques d’approvisionnement exigeant la prise en compte des fournisseurs minoritaires

Notes de fin

1 Capitalisation boursière des entreprises publiques interrogées en décembre 2019: 43% de grandes capitalisations (> 10 milliards de dollars); 47% de capitalisation moyenne (700 millions de dollars à 10 milliards de dollars); et 10% à petite capitalisation (<700 millions de dollars). Chiffre d’affaires annuel des entreprises privées interrogées en décembre 2019: 59% élevé (> 1 milliard de dollars); 29% de taille moyenne (250 millions de dollars à 1 milliard de dollars); et 6% petit (<250 millions de dollars).

Répartition sectorielle des répondants: 33% énergie, ressources et produits industriels; 24% consommateur; 24% services financiers; 10% technologie, médias et télécommunications; 7% sciences de la vie et soins de santé; et 1% autre.(retourner)

Comment la COVID-19 affecte-t-elle la rémunération des PDG et des administrateurs ?


Voici un article très intéressant de Andrew Gordon (Equilar, inc.), David F. Larcker (Stanford University), et Courtney Yu (Equilar, inc.) qui analyse les effets de la pandémie sur les rémunérations globales de CEO et des membres des conseils d’administration.

Cet article a été publié sur le Forum en gouvernance de Harvard Law School.

Voici les conclusions et les questionnements des auteurs à la suite d’une étude très détaillée des grandes entreprises américaines. J’ai utilisé l’outil de traduction de google afin de vous présenter les résultats.

Indépendamment de la valeur des ajustements annuels de rémunération que les entreprises ont effectués, les PDG ont subi une perte de richesse considérable en raison de leur propriété directe dans les actions de l’entreprise.

Sharing the Pain: How Did Boards Adjust CEO Pay in Response to COVID-19

 

U.S. firms shield CEO pay as pandemic hits workers, investors | Reuters

 

Pourquoi est-ce important ?

À la suite du COVID-19, moins de 20 % des entreprises publiques ont choisi d’apporter des modifications à leurs programmes de rémunération des dirigeants et des administrateurs. Selon l’angle à travers lequel ces changements sont mesurés — changement de salaire, rémunération totale ou perte de richesse — cela peut être considéré comme un sacrifice relativement modeste ou une perte importante de valeur.

Quelle a été la souffrance économique du PDG type ? En général, cela indique-t-il le succès ou l’échec de la conception du programme de compensation ?

Les entreprises qui ont connu des difficultés économiques étaient beaucoup plus susceptibles de réduire la rémunération des PDG et des administrateurs que celles qui ne l’ont pas fait. Ces PDG ont-ils la responsabilité de placer leurs entreprises dans une position de risque plus élevé entraînant des pertes plus importantes, ou leurs difficultés économiques étaient-elles dues à des facteurs tels que l’exposition à l’industrie qui étaient hors du contrôle du PDG ?

Dans ce dernier cas, les PDG de ces entreprises devraient-ils recevoir à l’avenir des primes supplémentaires pour compenser leurs pertes ? Quelle est la bonne chose à faire d’un point de vue économique ? Une perspective sociétale ?

Les PDG bénéficient généralement d’environnements économiques positifs et de valorisations boursières globales en hausse.

Les PDG devraient-ils être à l’abri des inversions de ces mêmes facteurs ? Dans l’affirmative, quelles implications cette asymétrie a-t-elle sur les incitatifs des PDG ? Cela crée-t-il une condition dans laquelle le PDG bénéficie de tout événement exogène ?

Le concept d’ESG (environnemental, social et de gouvernance) se concentre sur le fait que les entreprises qui embrassent réellement leurs parties prenantes et investissent dans leurs besoins ont un risque plus faible et des performances plus élevées. On s’attend à ce que ces entreprises subissent moins de pertes économiques en cas de ralentissement et qu’elles « agissent correctement » par leurs employés. Cependant, nous n’avons trouvé aucune différence observable entre les scores ESG des entreprises qui ont volontairement réduit la rémunération des PDG/administrateurs et celles qui ne l’ont pas fait, malgré des différences de performance.

Nous n’avons pas non plus trouvé de différence dans les scores ESG selon qu’ils choisissent ou non de licencier des employés.

Qu’est-ce que cela dit sur notre capacité à mesurer avec précision l’ESG ? Les entreprises affichant des scores ESG plus favorables sont-elles réellement « meilleures » du point de vue des parties prenantes ?

L’article complet est disponible en téléchargement ici.

Bonne lecture !

Difficultés d’application du modèle des « parties prenantes »


Yvan Allaire, président du conseil d’administration de l’Institut sur la gouvernance d’organisations privées et publiques (IGOPP) vient de me faire parvenir un nouvel article intitulé Actionnaires et parties prenantes : quelle gouvernance à venir ?  

Cet article, qui a paru dans Le Devoir le 3 août, intéressera sûrement tous les administrateurs siégeant à des conseils d’administration, et qui sont à l’affût des nouveautés dans le domaine de la gouvernance.

Le document discute des changements de paradigmes dans le monde de la gouvernance. Les auteurs expliquent l’évolution du modèle des « parties prenantes » et montrent que celui-ci, bien que méritoire, soulève de sérieuses difficultés d’application.

Cet article présente cinq questionnements à considérer dans la mise en œuvre de cette nouvelle gouvernance !

Bonne lecture !

 

 

 

 

Actionnaires et parties prenantes : quelle gouvernance à venir ?

Yvan Allaire et François Dauphin | Le Devoir

 

En raison surtout d’une véritable révolution des modes et quanta de rémunération des hauts dirigeants, les sociétés cotées en bourse en sont venues graduellement depuis les années ’80s à œuvrer presqu’exclusivement pour maximiser la création de valeur pour leurs actionnaires.

Tout au cours de ces 40 ans, ce modèle de société fut critiqué, décrié, tenu responsable pour les inégalités de revenus et de richesse et pour les dommages environnementaux. Toutefois, tant que cette critique provenait d’organisations de gauche, de groupuscules sans appui populaire, les sociétés pouvaient faire fi de ces critiques, les contrant par des campagnes de relations publiques et des ajustements mineurs à leur comportement.

Soudainement, pour des raisons multiples, un peu mystérieuses, cette critique des entreprises et du « capitalisme » a surgi du cœur même du système, soit, de grands actionnaires institutionnels récemment convertis à l’écologie. Selon cette nouvelle perspective, les sociétés cotées en bourse devraient désormais non seulement être responsables de leurs performances financières, mais tout autant de l’atteinte d’objectifs précis en matière d’environnement (E), d’enjeux sociaux (S) et de gouvernance (G). Pour les grandes entreprises tout particulièrement, le triplé ESG, de facto le modèle des parties prenantes, est devenu une caractéristique essentielle de leur gouvernance.

Puis, signe des temps, quelque 181 PDG des grandes sociétés américaines ont pris l’engagement, il y a un an à peine, de donner à leurs entreprises une nouvelle «raison d’être » (Purpose en anglais) comportant un « engagement fondamental » envers clients, employés, fournisseurs, communautés et leur environnement et, ultimement, les actionnaires.

De toute évidence, le vent tourne. Les questions environnementales et sociales ainsi que les attentes des parties prenantes autres que les actionnaires sont devenues des enjeux incontournables inscrits aux agendas politiques de presque tous les pays.

Les fonds d’investissement de toute nature bifurquèrent vers l’exigence de plans d’action spécifiques, de cibles mesurables en matière d’ESG ainsi qu’un arrimage entre la rémunération des dirigeants et ces cibles.

Bien que louable à bien des égards, le modèle de « parties prenantes » soulève des difficultés pratiques non négligeables.

1. Depuis un bon moment la Cour suprême du Canada a interprété la loi canadienne de façon favorable à une conception « parties prenantes » de la société. Ainsi, un conseil d’administration doit agir exclusivement dans l’intérêt de la société dont ils sont les administrateurs et n’accorder de traitement préférentiel ni aux actionnaires ni à toute autre partie prenante. Toutefois la Cour suprême n’offre pas de guide sur des sujets épineux conséquents à leur conception de la société : lorsque les intérêts des différentes parties prenantes sont contradictoires, comment doit-on interpréter l’intérêt de la société? Comment le conseil d’administration devrait-il arbitrer entre les intérêts divergents des diverses parties prenantes? Quelles d’entre elles devraient être prises en compte?

2. Comment les entreprises peuvent-elles composer avec des demandes onéreuses en matière d’ESG lorsque des concurrents, domestiques ou internationaux, ne sont pas soumis à ces mêmes pressions?

3. À un niveau plus fondamental, plus idéologique, les objectifs ESG devraient-ils aller au-delà de ce que la réglementation gouvernementale exige? Dans une société démocratique, n’est-ce pas plutôt le rôle des gouvernements, élus pour protéger le bien commun et incarner la volonté générale des populations, de réglementer les entreprises afin d’atteindre les objectifs sociaux et environnementaux de la société? Mais se peut-il que cette conversion des fonds d’investissement aux normes ESG et la redécouverte d’une « raison d’être » et des parties prenantes par les grandes sociétés ne soient en fait que d’habiles manœuvres visant à composer avec les pressions populaires et atténuer le risque d’interventions « intempestives » des gouvernements?

4. Quoi qu’il en soit, le changement des modes de gestion des entreprises, présumant que cette volonté est authentique, exigera des modifications importantes en matière d’incitatifs financiers pour les gestionnaires. La rémunération des dirigeants dans sa forme actuelle est en grande partie liée à la performance financière de l’entreprise et fluctue fortement selon le cours de l’action. Relier de façon significative la rémunération des dirigeants à certains objectifs ESG suppose des changements complexes qui susciteront de fortes résistances. En 2019, 67,2% des firmes du S&P/TSX 60 ont intégré au moins une mesure ESG dans leur programme de rémunération incitative. Toutefois, seulement 39,7% ont intégré au moins une mesure liée à l’environnement. Quelque 90% des firmes qui utilisent des mesures ESG le font dans le cadre de leur programme annuel de rémunération incitative mais pas dans les programmes de rémunération incitative à long terme. Ce fait est également observé aux États-Unis, alors qu’une étude récente de Willis Towers Watson démontrait que seulement 4% des firmes du S&P 500 utilisaient des mesures ESG dans des programmes à long terme.

5. N’est-il pas pertinent de soulever la question suivante : si l’entreprise doit être gérée selon le modèle des « parties prenantes », pourquoi seuls les actionnaires élisent-ils les membres du conseil d’administration? Cette question lancinante risque de hanter certains des promoteurs de ce modèle, car il ouvre la porte à l’entrée éventuelle d’autres parties prenantes au conseil d’administration, telles que les employés. Ce n’est peut-être pas ce que les fonds institutionnels avaient en tête lors de leur plaidoyer en faveur d’une conversion ESG.

Un vif débat fait rage (du moins dans les cercles académiques) sur les avantages et les inconvénients du modèle des parties prenantes. Dans le milieu des entreprises toutefois, la pression incessante des grands investisseurs a converti la plupart des directions d’entreprises à cette nouvelle religion ESG et parties prenantes même si plusieurs questions difficiles restent en suspens.

Les propos dans ce texte n’engagent que ses auteurs.

Resserrement des politiques à l’égard du nombre maximum de CA sur lesquels les administrateurs devraient siéger


Quelles sont les lignes directrices énoncées par les firmes de conseil en vote américaines eu égard au nombre de conseils d’administration sur lesquels les administrateurs devraient siéger ?

L’article de Krystal Berrini * publié sur le site de Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, présente un très bon résumé des politiques mises de l’avant par les firmes de conseil en vote.

Voici une traduction Google révisée du court texte publié récemment.

Au cours des dernières années, de grands investisseurs institutionnels ont répondu à leurs préoccupations croissantes concernant les demandes de services au conseil en adoptant ou en renforçant des politiques concernant le nombre total d’engagements d’un administrateur.

Cette tendance a entraîné une baisse importante du soutien au vote pour certains administrateurs jugés « Overboard » selon ces lignes directrices nouvelles ou resserrées. Dans de nombreux cas, ces politiques sont plus strictes que celles des principaux conseillers en vote.

À l’approche de la saison des procurations 2020, trois investisseurs institutionnels, State Street Global Advisors (SSGA), T. Rowe Price et AllianceBernstein, ont resserré leurs politiques d’engagement des administrateurs.

Grâce à ces politiques d’investisseurs renforcées, les administrateurs non exécutifs qui siègent à plus de quatre conseils d’administration et les PDG qui siègent à plus d’un conseil d’administration externe peuvent s’attendre à voir une diminution du soutien des actionnaires par rapport aux années précédentes.

La pandémie de COVID-19 a concentré l’attention des investisseurs sur une gamme de sujets de gouvernance et de surveillance du conseil d’administration, y compris la gestion des risques, la continuité des activités et la gestion des ressources humaines. Au cours des dernières semaines, un certain nombre d’investisseurs, dont BlackRock et SSGA, ont réitéré leur engagement à tenir les entreprises responsables de leurs pratiques ESG à long terme pendant cette période difficile.

Il est peu probable que les investisseurs s’écartent des directives sur les pratiques existantes, y compris les engagements du conseil. La crise actuelle de COVID-19, qui impose des contraintes supplémentaires au temps consenti par les administrateurs, renforcera probablement encore davantage les points de vue des investisseurs sur l’importance d’avoir la capacité de s’engager pleinement dans tous leurs engagements au sein du conseil en temps de crise.

Vous trouverez ci-dessous un résumé des mises à jour récentes des politiques des investisseurs et des conseillers en matière de procuration sur la participation excessive des administrateurs.

Le tableau indique le nombre de conseils auxquels un administrateur recevra généralement une recommandation ou un vote négatifs. En règle générale, les investisseurs et les conseillers en vote ne s’opposent aux administrateurs exécutifs (PDG) qu’en ce qui concerne leurs engagements comme administrateurs externes.

_____________________________

*Krystal Berrini * associée, Allie Rutherford, directrice générale, et Eric Sumberg, directeur chez PJT Camberview.

Les informations concernant les politiques de conseil aux investisseurs et aux procurations sont obtenues à partir des politiques américaines publiées qui peuvent être consultées sur leurs sites Web respectifs.

 

Guide des administrateurs 2020 | Deloitte


Le document suivant, publié par Deloitte, est une lecture fortement recommandée pour tous les administrateurs, plus particulièrement pour ceux et celles qui sont des responsabilités liées à l’évaluation de la  performance financière de l’entreprise.

Pour chacun des sujets abordés dans le document, les auteurs présentent un ensemble de questions que les administrateurs pourraient poser :

« Pour que les administrateurs puissent remplir leurs obligations en matière de présentation de l’information financière, ils doivent compter sur l’appui de la direction et poser les bonnes questions.

Dans cette publication, nous proposons des questions que les administrateurs pourraient poser à la direction concernant leurs documents financiers annuels, afin que ceux-ci fassent l’objet d’une remise en question appropriée ».

Je vous invite à prendre connaissance de cette publication en téléchargeant le guide ci-dessous.

Guide des administrateurs 2020

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "guide des administrateurs 2020 Deloitte"

 

Huit constats qui reflètent la mouvance de la gouvernance des sociétés


Aujourd’hui, je vous présente un article de John C. Wilcox *, président de la firme Morrow Sodali, paru sur le site du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, qui met en lumière les grandes tendances dans la gouvernance des sociétés.

L’article a d’abord été traduit en français en utilisant Google Chrome, puis, je l’ai édité et adapté.

À la fin de 2019, un certain nombre de déclarations extraordinaires ont signalé que la gouvernance d’entreprise avait atteint un point d’inflexion. Au Royaume-Uni, la British Academy a publié Principles for Purposeful Business. Aux États-Unis, la Business Roundtable a publié sa déclaration sur la raison d’être d’une société. Et en Suisse, le Forum économique mondial a publié le Manifeste de Davos 2020.

Ces déclarations sont la résultante des grandes tendances observées en gouvernance au cours des dix dernières années. Voici huit constats qui sont le reflet de cette mouvance.

    1. Reconnaissance que les politiques environnementales, sociales et de gouvernance d’entreprise (ESG) représentent des risques et des opportunités qui ont un impact majeur sur la performance financière ;
    2. Réévaluation de la doctrine de la primauté des actionnaires et de la vision étroite des sociétés comme des machines à profit ;
    3. Adoption de la « pérennité » comme objectif stratégique pour les entreprises, antidote au court terme et voie pour renforcer la confiance du public dans les entreprises et les marchés de capitaux ;
    4. Reconnaissance que les entreprises doivent servir les intérêts de leurs « parties prenantes » ainsi que de leurs actionnaires ;
    5. Réaffirmation du principe selon lequel les entreprises doivent être responsables des conséquences humaines, sociales et de politiques publiques de leurs activités, en mettant l’accent sur la priorité à accorder aux changements climatiques ;
    6. Assertion que la culture organisationnelle est le reflet de son intégrité, de son bien-être interne, de sa pérennité et de sa réputation.
    7. Acceptation de la responsabilité élargie du conseil d’administration pour les questions concernant l’ESG, la durabilité, la finalité et la culture, ainsi que la collaboration avec le PDG pour intégrer ces facteurs dans la stratégie commerciale ;
    8. Émergence du « reporting intégré » [www.integrated reporting.org] avec son programme de réflexion intégrée et de gestion intégrée comme base du « reporting » d’entreprise

J’ai reproduit ci-dessous les points saillants de l’article de Wilcox.

Bonne lecture !

Corporate Purpose and Culture

 

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "culture organisationnelle"

 

BlackRock’s Annual Letter

 

On January 14, 2020, right on cue, BlackRock Chairman and Chief Executive Larry Fink published his annual letter to corporate CEOs. This year’s letter, entitled “A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance,” is clearly intended as a wake-up call for both corporations and institutional investors. It explains what sustainability and corporate purpose mean to BlackRock and predicts that a tectonic governance shift will lead to “a fundamental reshaping of finance.” BlackRock does not mince words. The letter calls upon corporations to (1) provide “a clearer picture of how [they] are managing sustainability-related questions” and (2) explain how they serve their “full set of stakeholders.” To make sure these demands are taken seriously, the letter outlines the measures available to BlackRock if portfolio companies fall short of achieving sustainability goals: votes against management, accelerated public disclosure of voting decisions and greater involvement in collective engagement campaigns.

In setting forth its expectations for sustainability reporting by portfolio companies, BlackRock cuts through the tangle of competing standard-setters and recommends that companies utilize SASB materiality standards and TCFB climate metrics. In our view, individual companies should regard these recommendations as a starting point—not a blueprint—for their own sustainability reporting. No single analytical framework can work for the universe of companies of different sizes, in different industries, in different stages of development, in different markets. If a company determines that it needs to rely on different standards and metrics, the business and strategic reasons that justify its choices will be an effective basis for a customized sustainability report and statement of purpose.

As ESG casts such a wide net, not all variables can be studied at once to concretely conclude that all forms of ESG management demonstrably improve company performance. Ongoing research is still needed to identify the most relevant ESG factors that influence performance of individual companies in diverse industries. However, the economic relevance of ESG factors has been confirmed and is now building momentum among investors and companies alike.

Corporate Purpose

 

The immediate practical challenge facing companies and boards is how to assemble a statement of corporate purpose. What should it say? What form should it take?

In discussions with clients we are finding that a standardized approach is not the best way to answer these questions. Defining corporate purpose is not a compliance exercise. It does not lend itself to benchmarking. One size cannot fit all. No two companies have the same stakeholders, ESG policies, risk profile, value drivers, competitive position, culture, developmental history, strategic goals. These topics are endogenous and unique to individual companies. Collecting information and assembling all the elements that play a role in corporate purpose requires a deep dive into the inner workings of the company. It has to be a collaborative effort that reaches across different levels, departments and operations within the company. The goal of these efforts is to produce a customized, holistic business profile.

Other approaches that suggest a more standardized approach to corporate purpose and sustainability are also worth consideration:

  • Hermes EOS and Bob Eccles published a “Statement of Purpose Guidance Document” in August 2019. It envisions “a simple one-page declaration, issued by the company’s board of directors, that clearly articulates the company’s purpose and how to harmonize commercial success with social accountability and responsibility.”
  • CECP (Chief Executives for Corporate Purpose) has for 20 years been monitoring and scoring “best practices of companies leading in Corporate ” Many of CECP’s best practices take the form of short mission statements that do not necessarily include specific content relating to ESG issues or stakeholders. However, CECP is fully aware that times are changing. Its most recent publication, Investing in Society, acknowledges that the “stakeholder sea change in 2019 has redefined corporate purpose.”

A case can be made for combining the statement of purpose and sustainability report into a single document. Both are built on the same foundational information. Both are intended for a broad-based audience of stakeholders rather than just shareholders. Both seek to “tell the company’s story” in a holistic narrative that goes beyond traditional disclosure to reveal the business fundamentals, character and culture of the enterprise as well as its strategy and financial goals. Does it make sense in some cases for the statement of corporate purpose to be subsumed within a more comprehensive sustainability report?

Corporate Culture

 

Corporate culture, like corporate purpose, does not lend itself to a standard definition. Of the many intangible factors that are now recognized as relevant to a company’s risk profile and performance, culture is one of the most important and one of the most difficult to explain. There are, however, three proverbial certainties that have developed around corporate culture: (1) We know it when we see it -and worse, we know it most clearly when its failure leads to a crisis. (2) It is a responsibility of the board of directors, defined by their “tone at the top.” (3) It is the foundation for a company’s most precious asset, its reputation.

A recent posting on the International Corporate Governance Network web site provides a prototypical statement about corporate culture:

A healthy corporate culture attracts capital and is a key factor in investors’ decision making. The issue of corporate culture should be at the top of every board’s agenda and it is important that boards take a proactive rather than reactive approach to creating and sustaining a healthy corporate culture, necessary for long-term success.

The policies that shape corporate culture will vary for individual companies, but in every case the board of directors plays the defining role. The critical task for a “proactive” board is to establish through its policies a clear “tone at the top” and then to ensure that there is an effective program to implement, monitor and measure the impact of those policies at all levels within the company. In many cases, existing business metrics will be sufficient to monitor cultural health. Some obvious examples: employee satisfaction and retention, customer experience, safety statistics, whistle-blower complaints, legal problems, regulatory penalties, media commentary, etc. For purposes of assessing culture, these diagnostics need to be systematically reviewed and reported up to the board of directors with the same rigor as internal financial reporting.

In this emerging era of sustainability and purposeful governance, investors and other stakeholders will continue to increase their demand for greater transparency about what goes on in the boardroom and how directors fulfill their oversight responsibilities. A proactive board must also be a transparent board. The challenge for directors: How can they provide the expected level of transparency while still preserving confidentiality, collegiality, independence and a strategic working relationship with the CEO?

As boards ponder this question, they may want to consider whether the annual board evaluation can be made more useful and relevant. During its annual evaluation process, could the board not only review its governance structure and internal processes, but also examine how effectively it is fulfilling its duties with respect to sustainability, purpose, culture and stakeholder representation? Could the board establish its own KPIs on these topics and review progress annually? How much of an expanded evaluation process and its findings could the board disclose publicly?

Conclusion—A Sea Change?

 

In addition to the challenges discussed here, the evolving governance environment brings some good news for companies. First, the emphasis on ESG, sustainability, corporate purpose, culture and stakeholder interests should help to reduce reliance on external box-ticking and one-size-fits-all ESG evaluation standards. Second, the constraints on shareholder communication in a rules-based disclosure framework will be loosened as companies seek to tell their story holistically in sustainability reports and statements of purpose. Third, as the BlackRock letters make clear, institutional investors will be subject to the same pressures and scrutiny as companies with respect to their integration of ESG factors into investment decisions and accountability for supporting climate change and sustainability. Fourth, collaborative engagement, rather than confrontation and activism, will play an increasingly important role in resolving misunderstandings and disputes between companies and shareholders.

The 2020 annual meeting season will mark the beginning of a new era in governance and shareholder relations.


*John C. Wilcox is Chairman of Morrow Sodali. This post is based on a Morrow Sodali memorandum by Mr. Wilcox. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Toward Fair and Sustainable Capitalism by Leo E. Strine, Jr. (discussed on the Forum here).

La responsabilité des administrateurs eu égard aux risques climatiques | En rappel


Les responsabilités des conseils d’administration ne cessent de s’accroître. La gestion du risque est une activité essentielle qui relève des fonctions de surveillance dévolues aux administrateurs de sociétés.
L’article ci-dessous, publié par Richard Howitt dans Board Agenda, présente clairement les devoirs et les responsabilités des administrateurs eu égard aux changements climatiques.
Pour la plupart des entreprises, il s’agit du risque le plus déterminant quoique souvent le plus sous-estimé. L’auteur montre toute l’ampleur du problème et suggère plusieurs manières d’exercer un leadership éclairé dans la considération des risques de cette nature.
À mon avis, chaque administrateur devrait être bien au fait de la situation et réfléchir aux mesures à prendre. L’auteur note que les entreprises qui divulguent leurs plans concernant les risques climatiques sont perçues de façon positive par les investisseurs.

The necessity for “climate competence” to be a core skill for corporate boards had already been underlined through the publication of guidance for Effective Climate Governance on Corporate Boards at the World Economic Forum in January.

 

Bonne lecture !

TCFD summit confirms climate risk should be your board’s priority

 

The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) has set a pathway for climate risk to become an integral part of corporate governance.

climate, climate change, ice melting

Image: Bernhard Staehli/Shutterstock

The recent global summit of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) made it clear that companies will increasingly be subject to challenge on management of climate risk by regulators, investors and wider stakeholders.

The necessity for “climate competence” to be a core skill for corporate boards had already been underlined through the publication of guidance for Effective Climate Governance on Corporate Boards at the World Economic Forum in January.

There was a call for increased quality and quality of TCFD reporting, now standing at 800, in the Task Force’s last Status Report in June.

But as climate protests fill news bulletins around the world, this month’s summit in Tokyo is potentially far more significant, in setting a pathway for climate risk to become integral and unavoidable for mainstream corporate governance in all economic sectors.

A major push

If the original TCFD recommendations were a call to action, the summit charted an action plan through which they will be implemented.

Bank of England Governor Mark Carney used the summit to warn that regulation requiring TCFD reporting is probably two years away, appealing to businesses present to develop their own reporting in the meanwhile, to ensure mandatory measures are shaped to be most effective for business itself.

The veiled threat is that companies who delay on climate disclosure will find themselves subject to costly burden.

Full integration of TCFD recommendations in the EU’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive guidelines is a further sign that Europe may lead mandatory reporting requirements as part of its major push towards sustainable finance, also in the next two years.

Investors are themselves now rewarding and penalising companies on how far they are genuinely integrating climate risk

The UK’s own Green Finance Strategy is hardly less ambitious, setting a target for all listed companies and large asset owners to disclose their climate-related risks and opportunities by 2022 at the latest. And the capital markets regulator in Australia has issued guidance to company directors on addressing climate risk.

But the global summit was notable for its recognition that investors, not simply regulators, are themselves now rewarding and penalising companies on how far they are genuinely integrating climate risk.

One tangible initiative from the summit was new green investment guidance published by Japan’s own TCFD consortium. The effect will be a significant increase in investor engagement with companies on climate issues.

Companies present at the summit reporting anecdotal evidence of increased investor engagement on the issue included Shell, Total and Sumitomo Chemical.

A PwC report cited in Tokyo shows positive correlation between stock or share price and the quantity of TCFD disclosures made by the company, with research from the Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative quantifying that that the risk of non-disclosure is a bigger liability for the company than of disclosure itself.

Meanwhile, during the 2019 proxy season shareholder activists pressed disclosure resolutions including climate risk at no fewer than 64 company AGMs in the US alone.

An opportunity for leadership

The summit heard TCFD reporting is being adopted by companies valued at a combined market capitalisation of $118trn—an important challenge to organisations that have not yet made the shift.

Already we know that climate-related financial risk should be treated by directors as a core part of their duty to promote the success of the company. Failure to do so could expose directors to legal challenge.

But the action required is now clear. The board should ensure that material climate-related risks and opportunities are not simply reported, but fully integrated in to the company’s strategy, risk-management process and investment decisions.

Climate-related financial risk should be treated by directors as a core part of their duty to promote the success of the company

Among the actions required are ensuring board and committee structures incorporate climate risk and opportunity; recruitment of new directors with the requisite knowledge and skills; incorporating management of climate risk into executive remuneration; and fully integrating it in the company’s own risk management.

Board members must provide the leadership for the company to engage with relevant experts and stakeholders to tackle the challenge, and should ensure they are sufficiently informed themselves to maintain adequate oversight.

Lastly, boards should recognise that climate risk may involve addressing timescales beyond conventional board terms, but are within mainstream investment and planning horizons accorded to every other financial risk and opportunity.

A board responsibility

The summit underlined how existing TCFD reporting is still falling short of being decision-useful, in demonstrating strategic resilience of the company and in incorporating targets for transition to net zero.

It also enabled further discussion of the measurements required for reporting, including clarifying what is green revenue, and the definition of terms such as “environmentally sustainable”.

But as work from the Corporate Reporting Dialogue shows, almost all of the necessary indicators are already available in existing frameworks. It is not whether they are available, but how they are used.

Ultimately this is a responsibility that must reside in the boardroom itself

Plentiful assistance for board members is on hand through online resources like the TCFD Knowledge Hub organised by the Climate Disclosure Standards Board, training offered by organisations such as Competent Boards, or detailed guidance for specific sectors through specific TCFD preparer forums.

But ultimately this is a responsibility that must reside in the boardroom itself. Every company board has its own responsibility to consider where its own business model stands in relation to that transition.

And with finance ministries, central banks and regulators in the top 20 economies of the world concluding that climate change is a risk to the stability of the entire global financial system, no company can ignore this task.

______________________________

Richard Howitt is a strategic adviser on corporate responsibility and sustainability, and former CEO at the International Integrated Reporting Council.

Un nouveau paradigme consensuel en gouvernance | En rappel


 

Voici un article de Martin Lipton et de William Savitt, associés de la firme Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, qui se spécialise dans les questions se rapportant à la gouvernance des organisations.

Les auteurs  montrent clairement la grande convergence  des principes de gouvernance eu égard à la considération des parties prenantes dans l’exercice du leadership et de la mission des entreprises publiques.

L’article montre clairement qu’il est maintenant temps d’officialiser un nouveau paradigme en gouvernance, à la suite de l’adoption de mesures concrètes de la part :

    • The UK Stewardship Code 2020,
    • The UK Financial Reporting Council
    • The World Economic Forum
    • The Statement of the Purpose of a Corporation adopted by the Business Roundtable

Le Code de la Grande-Bretagne stipule que les entreprises publiques doivent s’assurer de considérer le point de vue de toutes les parties prenantes, notamment des employés. Notons cependant que ces mesures sont sujettes au fameux Comply and Explain si familier à l’approche britannique ! On propose de suivre l’une des voies suivantes afin d’actualiser cette règle de gouvernance :

    1. Un administrateur nommé par les employés ;
    2. La mise sur pied d’un groupe de travail formel ;
    3. La nomination d’un membre de la direction au conseil d’administration qui représente le point de vue des employés.

Je vous invite à lire ce bref article et à consulter le texte It’s Time to Adopt The New Paradigm.

Bonne lecture !

The New Paradigm

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « The New Paradigm in governance »

 

With the adoption this week of The UK Stewardship Code 2020, to accompany The UK Corporate Governance Code 2018, the UK Financial Reporting Council has promulgated corporate governance, stewardship and engagement principles closely paralleling The New Paradigm issued by the World Economic Forum in 2016.

While the FRC codes are “comply and explain,” they fundamentally commit companies and asset managers and asset owners to sustainable long-term investment. As stated by the FRC:

The new Code sets high expectations of those investing money on behalf of UK savers and pensioners. In particular, the new Code establishes a clear benchmark for stewardship as the responsible allocation, management and oversight of capital to create long-term value for clients and beneficiaries leading to sustainable benefits for the economy, the environment and society (emphasis added).

There is a strong focus on the activities and outcomes of stewardship, not just policy statements. There are new expectations about how investment and stewardship is integrated, including environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues ….

The FRC Corporate Governance Code builds on the stakeholder governance provisions of Sec. 172 of the UK Company Law 2006 by requiring a company’s annual report to describe how the interest of all stakeholders have been considered. Of special interest is the Code’s provision with respect to employees:

For engagement with the workforce, one or a combination of the following methods should be used:

  • a director appointed from the workforce;
  • a formal workforce advisory panel;
  • a designated non-executive director.

If the board has not chosen one or more of these methods, it should explain what alternative arrangements are in place and why it considers that they are effective.

In broad outline, the FRC codes would fit very well in implementation of the World Economic Forum’s The New Paradigm: A Roadmap for an Implicit Corporate Governance Partnership Between Corporations and Investors to Achieve Sustainable Long-Term Investment and Growth.

The Statement of the Purpose of a Corporation adopted by the Business Roundtable in August of this year is likewise consistent with the FRC codes and The New Paradigm. Each of these initiatives recognizes that private-sector action is necessary to create a corporate governance regime suited to the challenges of the twenty-first century. And each recognizes that such action is possible within the structure of prevailing corporate law. The convergence of the FRC codes, the BRT statement of purpose, the 2016 BRT Principles of Corporate Governance, and the New Paradigm strongly suggest that the time is right for the BRT and the Investor Stewardship Group (which has similar principles) to create a joint version of The New Paradigm that could be adopted universally. See, It’s Time to Adopt The New Paradigm (discussed on the Forum here).

Changement de perspective en gouvernance de sociétés !


Yvan Allaire*, président exécutif du conseil de l’Institut sur la gouvernance (IGOPP) m’a fait parvenir un nouvel article intitulé «The Business Roundtable on “The Purpose of a Corporation” Back to the future!».

Cet article a été publié dans le Financial Post en septembre 2019. Celui-ci intéressera assurément tous les administrateurs siégeant à des conseils d’administration, et qui sont à l’affût des nouveautés dans le domaine de la gouvernance.

Le document discute des changements de paradigmes proposés par les CEO des grandes corporations américaines.

Les administrateurs selon ce groupe de dirigeants doivent tenir compte de l’ensemble des parties prenantes (stakeholders) dans la gouverne des organisations, et non plus accorder la priorité aux actionnaires.

Cet article discute des retombées de cette approche et des difficultés eu égard à la mise en œuvre dans le système corporatif américain.

Le texte est en anglais. Une version française devrait être produite bientôt sur le site de l’IGOPP.

Bonne lecture !

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « the purpose of a corporation business roundtable »
CEOs in Business Roundtable ‘Redefine’ Corporate Purpose To Stretch Beyond Shareholders

The Business Roundtable on “The Purpose of a Corporation” Back to the future!

Yvan Allaire, PhD (MIT), FRSC

 

In September 2019, CEOs of large U.S. corporations have embraced with suspect enthusiasm the notion that a corporation’s purpose is broader than merely“ creating shareholder value”. Why now after 30 years of obedience to the dogma of shareholder primacy and servile (but highly paid) attendance to the whims and wants of investment funds?


Simply put, the answer rests with the recent conversion of these very funds, in particular index funds, to the church of ecological sanctity and social responsibility. This conversion was long acoming but inevitable as the threat to the whole system became more pressing and proximate.

The indictment of the “capitalist” system for the wealth inequality it produced and the environmental havoc it wreaked had to be taken seriously as it crept into the political agenda in the U.S. Fair or not, there is a widespread belief that the root cause of this dystopia lies in the exclusive focus of corporations on maximizing shareholder value. That had to be addressed in the least damaging way to the whole system.

Thus, at the urging of traditional investment funds, CEOs of large corporations, assembled under the banner of the Business Roundtable, signed a ringing statement about sharing “a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders”.

That commitment included:

Delivering value to our customers

Investing in our employees

Dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers.

Supporting the communities in which we work.

Generating long-term value for shareholders, who provide the capital that allows companies to invest, grow and innovate.

It is remarkable (at least for the U.S.) that the commitment to shareholders now ranks in fifth place, a good indication of how much the key economic players have come to fear the goings-on in American politics. That statement of “corporate purpose” was a great public relations coup as it received wide media coverage and provides cover for large corporations and investment funds against attacks on their behavior and on their very existence.


In some way, that statement of corporate purpose merely retrieves what used to be the norm for large corporations. Take, for instance, IBM’s seven management principles which guided this company’s most successful run from the 1960’s to 1992:

Seven Management Principles at IBM 1960-1992

  1. Respect for the individual
  2. Service to the customer
  3. Excellence must be way of life
  4. Managers must lead effectively
  5. Obligation to stockholders
  6. Fair deal for the supplier
  7. IBM should be a good corporate citizen

The similarity with the five “commitments” recently discovered at the Business Roundtable is striking. Of course, in IBM’s heydays, there were no rogue funds, no “activist” hedge funds or private equity funds to pressure corporate management into delivering maximum value creation for shareholders. How will these funds whose very existence depends on their success at fostering shareholder primacy cope with this “heretical nonsense” of equal treatment for all stakeholders?

As this statement of purpose is supported, was even ushered in, by large institutional investors, it may well shield corporations against attacks by hedge funds and other agitators. To be successful, these funds have to rely on the overt or tacit support of large investors. As these investors now endorse a stakeholder view of the corporation, how can they condone and back these financial players whose only goal is to push up the stock price often at the painful expense of other stakeholders?

This re-discovery in the US of a stakeholder model of the corporation should align it with Canada and the UK where a while back the stakeholder concept of the corporation was adopted in their legal framework.

Thus in Canada, two judgments of the Supreme Court are peremptory: the board must not grant any preferential treatment in its decision-making process to the interests of the shareholders or any other stakeholder, but must act exclusively in the interests of the corporation of which they are the directors.

In the UK, Section 172 of the Companies Act of 2006 states: “A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, among which the interests of the company’s employees, the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others, the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment,…”

So, belatedly, U.S. corporations will, it seems, self-regulate and self-impose a sort of stakeholder model in their decision-making.

Alas, as in Canada and the UK, they will quickly find out that there is little or no guidance on how to manage the difficult trade-offs among the interests of various stakeholders, say between shareholders and workers when considering outsourcing operations to a low-cost country.

But that may be the appeal of this “purpose of the corporation”: it sounds enlightened but does not call for any tangible changes in the way corporations are managed.

 

Les critères de benchmarking d’ISS eu égard aux guides de saine gouvernance


Les auteurs* de cet article, paru dans le Forum du Harvard Law School, présentent les résultats d’un survey sur quatre grandes dimensions de la gouvernance des sociétés cotées.

Les sujets touchent :

(1) board composition/accountability, including gender diversity, mitigating factors for zero women on boards and overboarding;

(2) board/capital structure, including sunsets on multi-class shares and the combined CEO/chair role;

(3) compensation ; and

(4) climate change risk oversight and disclosure.

Les points importants à retenir de cet article sont indiqués en bleu dans le sommaire.

Bonne lecture !

ISS 2019 Benchmarking Policy Survey—Key Findings

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « ISS 2019 Benchmark Policy Survey—Key Findings »

 

[On Sept. 11, 2019], Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) announced the results of its 2019 Global Policy Survey (a.k.a. ISS 2019 Benchmark Policy Survey) based on respondents including investors, public company executives and company advisors. ISS will use these results to inform its policies for shareholder meetings occurring on or after February 1, 2020. ISS expects to solicit comments in the latter half of October 2019 on its draft policy updates and release its final policies in mid-November 2019.

While the survey included questions targeting both global and designated geographic markets, the key questions affecting the U.S. markets fell into the following categories: (1) board composition/accountability, including gender diversity, mitigating factors for zero women on boards and overboarding; (2) board/capital structure, including sunsets on multi-class shares and the combined CEO/chair role; (3) compensation; and (4) climate change risk oversight and disclosure. We previously provided an overview of the survey questions.

The ISS report distinguishes responses from investors versus non-investors. Investors primarily include asset managers, asset owners, and institutional investor advisors. In contrast, non-investors mainly comprise public company executives, public company board members, and public company advisors.

Key Takeaways

Only 128 investors and 268 non-investors (85% were corporate executives) participated in the survey. While the results overall are not surprising for the survey questions relating to board diversity, overboarding, inclusion of GAAP metrics for comparison in compensation-related reports and climate change matters, the level of support for multi-class structures with sunsets was surprisingly high.

Summary

1. Board Composition/Accountability

a. Board Gender Diversity Including Mitigating Factors for Zero Women on Boards: Both investors (61%) and non-investors (55%) indicated that board gender diversity is an essential attribute of effective board governance regardless of the company or its market. Among respondents who do not believe diversity is essential, investors tended to favor a market-by-market approach and non-investors tended to favor an analysis conducted at the company level.

Another question elicited views on ISS’s diversity policy that will be effective in 2020. Under the new policy, ISS will recommend voting against the nominating committee chair (or other members as appropriate) at Russell 3000 and/or S&P 1500 companies that do not have at least one female director. Before ISS issues a negative recommendation on this basis, ISS intends to consider mitigating factors.

The survey questioned what other mitigating factors a respondent would consider besides a company’s providing a firm commitment to appointing a woman in the near-term and having recently had a female on the board. The survey provided the following three choices and invited respondents to check all that apply: (1) the Rooney Rule, which involves a commitment to including females in the pool of new director candidates; (2) a commitment to actively searching for a female director; and (3) other.

Results show that investors were more likely than non-investors to answer that no other mitigating factors should be considered (46% of the investors compared to 28% of the non-investors) besides a recent former female director or a firm commitment to appoint a woman. With regard to willingness to consider mitigating factors, 57 investors and 141 non-investors checked at least one answer. More non-investors found a company’s observance of the Rooney Rule to be a mitigating factor worth considering (selected by 113 non-investors) than the company’s commitment to conduct an active search (selected by 85 non-investors). These two factors were each selected by 34 investors.

b. Director Overboarding: The survey responses show investors and non-investors appear to hold diverging positions on director overboarding. On a plurality basis, investors (42%) preferred a maximum of four total board seats for non-executive directors while they (45%) preferred a maximum of two board seats (including the “home” board) for CEOs. In comparison, on a plurality basis, about one third of non-investors preferred to leave the determination to the board’s discretion for both non-executive directors and CEOs.

2. Board/Capital Structure

a. Multi-Class Structures and Sunset Provisions: Results reveal that 55% of investors and 47% of non-investors found a seven-year maximum sunset provision appropriate for a multi-class structure. Among respondents who indicated that a maximum seven-year sunset provision was inappropriate, 36% of non-investors replied that a longer sunset (10 years or more) was appropriate and 35% of investors objected to any form of multi-class structure.

b. Independent Chair: Currently, ISS generally supports shareholder proposals that request an independent board chair after taking into consideration a wide variety of factors such as the company’s financial practices, governance structure and governance practices. ISS asked participants to indicate which factors the respondent considers and listed factors for respondents to choose from, such as a weak or poorly defined lead director role, governance practices that weaken or reduce board accountability to shareholders, lack of board refreshment or board diversity, and poor responsiveness to shareholder concerns. Respondents were instructed to check all that applied.

The results unsurprisingly suggest that investors prefer an independent board chair more than non-investors. Investors chose poor responsiveness to shareholder concerns most often whereas non-investors selected the factor relating to a weak or poorly defined lead director role.

Investors’ second highest selection was governance practices that weaken or reduce board accountability to shareholders (such as a classified board, plurality vote standard, lack of ability to call special meetings and lack of a proxy access right). For non-investors, poor responsiveness to shareholder concerns was the second highest selection.

3. Compensation

a. Economic Value Added (EVA) and GAAP Metrics: Beginning in 2019, ISS research reports for the U.S. and Canadian markets started to include additional information on company performance using an EVA-based framework. Survey results showed that a strong majority of respondents still want GAAP metrics to be provided in the research reports as a means of comparison.

4. Climate Change Risk Oversight & Disclosure

a. Disclosures and Actions Relating to Climate Change Risk: The ISS survey asked respondents whether climate change should be given a high priority in companies’ risk assessments. ISS questioned whether all companies should be assessing and disclosing their climate-related risks and taking actions to mitigate them where possible.

Results show that 60% of investors answered that all companies should be assessing and disclosing climate-related risks and taking mitigating actions where possible. Roughly one third of investors indicated that “each company’s appropriate level of disclosure and action will depend on a variety of factors including its own business model, its industry sector, where and how it operates, and other company-specific factors and board members.” In addition, 5% of investors thought the possible risks related to climate change are often too uncertain to incorporate into a company-specific risk assessment model.

b. Shareholder Action in Response to a Company’s Failure to Report or Mitigate Climate Change Risk: Investors and non-investors indicated that the most appropriate actions to consider when a company fails to effectively report or address its climate change risk are (a) engaging with the company, and (b) voting for a shareholder proposal seeking increased climate-related disclosure.

 


*Betty Moy Huber is counsel and Paula H. Simpkins is an associate at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

Répertoire des articles en gouvernance publiés sur LinkedIn | En reprise


L’un des moyens utilisés pour mieux faire connaître les grandes tendances en gouvernance de sociétés est la publication d’articles choisis sur ma page LinkedIn.

Ces articles sont issus des parutions sur mon blogue Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé

Depuis janvier 2016, j’ai publié un total de 43 articles sur ma page LinkedIn.

Aujourd’hui, je vous propose la liste des 10 articles que j’ai publiés à ce jour en 2019 :

 

Liste des 10 articles publiés à ce jour en 2019

 

Image associée

 

 

1, Les grandes firmes d’audit sont plus sélectives dans le choix de leurs mandats

2. Gouvernance fiduciaire et rôles des parties prenantes (stakeholders)

3. Problématiques de gouvernance communes lors d’interventions auprès de diverses organisations – Partie I Relations entre président du CA et DG

4. L’âge des administrateurs de sociétés représente-t-il un facteur déterminant dans leur efficacité comme membres indépendants de CA ?

5. On constate une évolution progressive dans la composition des conseils d’administration

6. Doit-on limiter le nombre d’années qu’un administrateur siège à un conseil afin de préserver son indépendance ?

7. Manuel de saine gouvernance au Canada

8. Étude sur le mix des compétences dans la composition des conseils d’administration

9. Indice de diversité de genre | Equilar

10. Le conseil d’administration est garant de la bonne conduite éthique de l’organisation !

 

Si vous souhaitez voir l’ensemble des parutions, je vous invite à vous rendre sur le Lien vers les 43 articles publiés sur LinkedIn depuis 2016

 

Bonne lecture !

Gouvernance fiduciaire et rôles des parties prenantes (stakeholders) | En reprise


Je partage avec vous l’excellente prise de position de Martin Lipton *, Karessa L. Cain et Kathleen C. Iannone, associés de la firme Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, spécialisée dans les fusions et acquisitions et dans les questions de gouvernance fiduciaire.

L’article présente un plaidoyer éloquent en faveur d’une gouvernance fiduciaire par un conseil d’administration qui doit non seulement considérer le point de vue des actionnaires, mais aussi des autres parties prenantes,

Depuis quelque temps, on assiste à des changements significatifs dans la compréhension du rôle des CA et dans l’interprétation que les administrateurs se font de la valeur de l’entreprise à long terme.

Récemment, le Business Roundtable a annoncé son engagement envers l’inclusion des parties prenantes dans le cadre de gouvernance fiduciaire des sociétés.

Voici un résumé d’un article paru dans le Los Angeles Times du 19 août 2019 : In shocking reversal, Big Business puts the shareholder value myth in the grave.

Among the developments followers of business ethics may have thought they’d never see, the end of the shareholder value myth has to rank very high.

Yet one of America’s leading business lobbying groups just buried the myth. “We share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders,” reads a statement issued Monday by the Business Roundtable and signed by 181 CEOs. (Emphasis in the original.)

The statement mentions, in order, customers, employees, suppliers, communities and — dead last — shareholders. The corporate commitment to all these stakeholders may be largely rhetorical at the moment, but it’s hard to overstate what a reversal the statement represents from the business community’s preexisting viewpoint.

Stakeholders are pushing companies to wade into sensitive social and political issues — especially as they see governments failing to do so effectively.

Since the 1970s, the prevailing ethos of corporate management has been that a company’s prime responsibility — effectively, its only responsibility — is to serve its shareholders. Benefits for those other stakeholders follow, but they’re not the prime concern.

In the Business Roundtable’s view, the paramount duty of management and of boards of directors is to the corporation’s stockholders; the interests of other stakeholders are relevant as a derivative of the duty to stockholders,” the organization declared in 1997.

Bonne lecture. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus !

 

Stakeholder Governance and the Fiduciary Duties of Directors

 

Jamie Dimon
JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon signed the business statement disavowing the shareholder value myth.(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

 

There has recently been much debate and some confusion about a bedrock principle of corporate law—namely, the essence of the board’s fiduciary duty, and particularly the extent to which the board can or should or must consider the interests of other stakeholders besides shareholders.

For several decades, there has been a prevailing assumption among many CEOs, directors, scholars, investors, asset managers and others that the sole purpose of corporations is to maximize value for shareholders and, accordingly, that corporate decision-makers should be very closely tethered to the views and preferences of shareholders. This has created an opportunity for corporate raiders, activist hedge funds and others with short-termist agendas, who do not hesitate to assert their preferences and are often the most vocal of shareholder constituents. And, even outside the context of shareholder activism, the relentless pressure to produce shareholder value has all too often tipped the scales in favor of near-term stock price gains at the expense of long-term sustainability.

In recent years, however, there has been a growing sense of urgency around issues such as economic inequality, climate change and socioeconomic upheaval as human capital has been displaced by technological disruption. As long-term investors and the asset managers who represent them have sought to embrace ESG principles and their role as stewards of corporations in pursuit of long-term value, notions of shareholder primacy are being challenged. Thus, earlier this week, the Business Roundtable announced its commitment to stakeholder corporate governance, and outside the U.S., legislative reforms in the U.K. and Europe have expressly incorporated consideration of other stakeholder interests in the fiduciary duty framework. The Council of Institutional Investors and others, however, have challenged the wisdom and legality of stakeholder corporate governance.

To be clear, Delaware law does not enshrine a principle of shareholder primacy or preclude a board of directors from considering the interests of other stakeholders. Nor does the law of any other state. Although much attention has been given to the Revlon doctrine, which suggests that the board must attempt to achieve the highest value reasonably available to shareholders, that doctrine is narrowly limited to situations where the board has determined to sell control of the company and either all or a preponderant percentage of the consideration being paid is cash or the transaction will result in a controlling shareholder. Indeed, theRevlon doctrine has played an outsized role in fiduciary duty jurisprudence not because it articulates the ultimate nature and objective of the board’s fiduciary duty, but rather because most fiduciary duty litigation arises in the context of mergers or other extraordinary transactions where heightened standards of judicial review are applicable. In addition, Revlon’s emphasis on maximizing short-term shareholder value has served as a convenient touchstone for advocates of shareholder primacy and has accordingly been used as a talking point to shape assumptions about fiduciary duties even outside the sale-of-control context, a result that was not intended. Around the same time that Revlon was decided, the Delaware Supreme Court also decided the Unocal and Household cases, which affirmed the board’s ability to consider all stakeholders in using a poison pill to defend against a takeover—clearly confining Revlonto sale-of-control situations.

The fiduciary duty of the board is to promote the value of the corporation. In fulfilling that duty, directors must exercise their business judgment in considering and reconciling the interests of various stakeholders—including shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, the environment and communities—and the attendant risks and opportunities for the corporation.

Indeed, the board’s ability to consider other stakeholder interests is not only uncontroversial—it is a matter of basic common sense and a fundamental component of both risk management and strategic planning. Corporations today must navigate a host of challenges to compete and succeed in a rapidly changing environment—for example, as climate change increases weather-related risks to production facilities or real property investments, or as employee training becomes critical to navigate rapidly evolving technology platforms. A board and management team that is myopically focused on stock price and other discernible benchmarks of shareholder value, without also taking a broader, more holistic view of the corporation and its longer-term strategy, sustainability and risk profile, is doing a disservice not only to employees, customers and other impacted stakeholders but also to shareholders and the corporation as a whole.

The board’s role in performing this balancing function is a central premise of the corporate structure. The board is empowered to serve as the arbiter of competing considerations, whereas shareholders have relatively limited voting rights and, in many instances, it is up to the board to decide whether a matter should be submitted for shareholder approval (for example, charter amendments and merger agreements). Moreover, in performing this balancing function, the board is protected by the business judgment rule and will not be second-guessed for embracing ESG principles or other stakeholder interests in order to enhance the long-term value of the corporation. Nor is there any debate about whether the board has the legal authority to reject an activist’s demand for short-term financial engineering on the grounds that the board, in its business judgment, has determined to pursue a strategy to create sustainable long-term value.

And yet even if, as a doctrinal matter, shareholder primacy does not define the contours of the board’s fiduciary duties so as to preclude consideration of other stakeholders, the practical reality is that the board’s ability to embrace ESG principles and sustainable investment strategies depends on the support of long-term investors and asset managers. Shareholders are the only corporate stakeholders who have the right to elect directors, and in contrast to courts, they do not decline to second-guess the business judgment of boards. Furthermore, a number of changes over the last several decades—including the remarkable consolidation of economic and voting power among a relatively small number of asset managers, as well as legal and “best practice” reforms—have strengthened the ability of shareholders to influence corporate decision-making.

To this end, we have proposed The New Paradigm, which conceives of corporate governance as a partnership among corporations, shareholders and other stakeholders to resist short-termism and embrace ESG principles in order to create sustainable, long-term value. See our paper, It’s Time to Adopt The New Paradigm.


Martin Lipton * is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy; Karessa L. Cain is a partner; and Kathleen C. Iannone is an associate. This post is based on their Wachtell Lipton publication.

En reprise | Comment les firmes de conseil en votation évaluent-elles les efforts des entreprises eu égard à leur gestion environnementale et sociale ?


Les auteurs* de cet article expliquent en des termes très clairs le sens que les firmes de conseil en votation Glass Lewis et ISS donnent aux risques environnementaux et sociaux associés aux pratiques de gouvernance des entreprises publiques (cotées).

Il est vrai que l’on parle de ESG (en anglais) ou de RSE (en français) sans donner de définition explicite de ces concepts.

Ici, on montre comment les firmes spécialisées en conseils aux investisseurs mesurent les dimensions sous-jacentes à ces expressions.

Les administrateurs de sociétés ont tout intérêt à connaître sur quoi ces firmes se basent pour évaluer la qualité des efforts de leur entreprise en matière de gestion environnementale et de considérations sociales.

J’espère que vous apprécierez ce court extrait paru sur le Forum du Harvard Law School.

Bonne lecture !

 

 

Glass Lewis, ISS, and ESG

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « esg »

 

With some help from leading investor groups like Black Rock and T. Rowe Price, environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) issues, once the sole purview of specialist investors and activist groups, are increasingly working their way into the mainstream for corporate America. For some boards, conversations about ESG are nothing new. For many directors, however, the increased emphasis on the subject creates some consternation, in part because it’s not always clear what issues properly fall under the ESG umbrella. E, S, and G can mean different things to different people—not to mention the fact that some subjects span multiple categories. How do boards know what it is that they need to know? Where should boards be directing their attention?

A natural starting place for directors is to examine the guidelines published by the leading proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass Lewis. While not to be held up as a definitive prescription for good governance practices, the stances adopted by both advisors can provide a window into how investors who look to these organizations for guidance are thinking about the subject.

 

Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)

 

In February of 2018, ISS launched an Environmental & Social Quality Score which they describe as “a data-driven approach to measuring the quality of corporate disclosures on environmental and social issues, including sustainability governance, and to identify key disclosure omissions.”

To date, their coverage focuses on approximately 4,700 companies across 24 industries they view “as being most exposed to E&S risks, including: Energy, Materials, Capital Goods, Transportation, Automobiles & Components, and Consumer Durables & Apparel.” ISS believes that the extent to which companies disclose their practices and policies publicly, as well as the quality of a company’s disclosure on their practices, can be an indicator of ESG performance. This view is not unlike that espoused by Black Rock, who believes that a lack of ESG disclosure beyond what is legally mandated often necessitates further research.

Below is a summary of how ISS breaks down E, S, & G. Clearly the governance category includes topics familiar to any public company board.

 

iss-esg-quality-score-table

 

ISS’ E&S scoring is based on answers to over 380 individual questions which ISS analysts attempt to answer for each covered company based on disclosed data. The majority of the questions in the ISS model are applied to all industry groups, and all of them are derived from third-party lists or initiatives, including the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. The E&S Quality Score measures the company’s level of environmental and social disclosure risk, both overall and specific to the eight broad categories listed in the table above. ISS does not combine ES&G into a single score, but provides a separate E&S score that stands alongside the governance score.

These disclosure risk scores, similar to the governance scores companies have become accustomed to seeing each year, are scaled from 1 to 10 with lower scores indicating a lower level of risk relative to industry peers. For example, a score of 2 indicates that a company has lower risk than 80% of its industry peers.

 

Glass Lewis

 

Glass Lewis uses data and ratings from Sustainalytics, a provider of ESG research, in the ESG Profile section of their standard Proxy Paper reports for large cap companies or “in instances where [they] identify material oversight issues.” Their stated goal is to provide summary data and insights that can be used by Glass Lewis clients as part of their investment decision-making, including aligning proxy voting and engagement practices with ESG risk management considerations.

The Glass Lewis evaluation, using Sustainalytics guidelines, rates companies on a matrix which weighs overall “ESG Performance” against the highest level of “ESG Controversy.” Companies who are leaders in terms of ESG practices (or disclosure) have a higher threshold for triggering risk in this model.

 

glass-lewis-risk-model-chart

 

The evaluation model also notes that some companies involved in particular product areas are naturally deemed higher risk, including adult entertainment, alcoholic beverages, arctic drilling, controversial weapons, gambling, genetically modified plants and seeds, oil sands, pesticides, thermal coal, and tobacco.

Conclusion

 

ISS and Glass Lewis guidelines can help provide a basic structure for starting board conversations about ESG. For most companies, the primary focus is on transparency, in other words how clearly are companies disclosing their practices and philosophies regarding ESG issues in their financial filings and on their corporate websites? When a company has had very public environmental or social controversies—and particularly when those issues have impacted shareholder value—advisory firm evaluations of corporate transparency may also impact voting recommendations on director elections or related shareholder proposals.

Pearl Meyer does not expect the advisory firms’ ESG guidelines to have much, if any, bearing on compensation-related recommendations or scorecards in the near term. In the long term, however, we do think certain hot-button topics will make their way from the ES&G scorecard to the compensation scorecard. This shift will likely happen sooner in areas where ESG issues are more prominent, such as those specifically named by Glass Lewis.

We are recommending that organizations take the time to examine any ESG issues relevant to their business and understand how those issues may be important to stakeholders on a proactive basis, perhaps adding ESG policies to the list of sunny day shareholder outreach topics after this year’s proxy season. This does take time and effort, but better that than to find out about a nagging ESG issue through activist activity or a negative voting recommendation from ISS or Glass Lewis.

 

References

1. https://www.issgovernance.com/iss-announces-launch-of-environmental-social-qualityscore-corporate-profiling-solution/

2. https://www.glasslewis.com/understanding-esg-content/

_________________________________________________________

* David Bixby is managing director and Paul Hudson is principal at Pearl Meyer & Partners, LLC. This post is based on a Pearl Meyer memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Social Responsibility Resolutions by Scott Hirst (discussed on the Forum here).

Le rôle du CA dans le développement durable et la création de valeur pour les actionnaires et les parties prenantes | En reprise


Aujourd’hui, je présente un article publié par Azeus Convene qui montre l’importance accrue que les entreprises doivent apporter au développement durable. 

L’article insiste sur le rôle du conseil d’administration pour faire des principes du développement durable à long terme les principales conditions de succès des organisations.

 

Les administrateurs doivent concevoir des politiques qui génèrent une valeur ajoutée à long terme pour les actionnaires, mais ils doivent aussi contribuer à améliorer le sort des parties prenantes, telles que les clients, les communautés et la société en général.

 

Il n’est cependant pas facile d’adopter des politiques qui mettent de l’avant les principes du développement durable et de la gestion des risques liés à l’environnement.

 

Dans ce document, publié sur le site de Board Agenda, on explique l’approche que les conseils d’administration doivent adopter en insistant plus particulièrement sur trois points :

 

    1. Un leadership capable de faire valoir les nombreux avantages stratégiques à tirer de cette approche ;
    2. Des conseils eu égard à l’implantation des changements
    3. Le processus de communication à mettre en œuvre afin de faire valoir les succès des entreprises

 

L’article qui suit donne plus de détails sur les fondements et l’application de l’approche du développement durable.

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont appréciés.

 

Le développement durable, la création de valeur et le rôle du CA

 

 

 

Businesses everywhere are developing sustainability policies. Implementation is never easy, but the right guidance can show the way.

When the experts sat down to write the UK’s new Corporate Governance Code earlier this year, they drafted a critical first principle. The role of the board is to “promote the long-term sustainable success of the company”. Boardroom members should generate value for shareholders, but they should also be “contributing to wider society”.

It is the values inherent in this principle that enshrines sustainability at the heart of running a company today.

Often sustainability is viewed narrowly, relating to policies affecting climate change. But it has long since ceased to be just about the environment. Sustainability has become a multifaceted concern embracing the long-term interests of shareholders, but also responsibilities to society, customers and local communities.

Publications like Harvard Business Review now publish articles such as “Inclusive growth: profitable strategies for tackling poverty and inequality”, or “Competing on social purpose”. Forbes has “How procurement will save the world” and “How companies can increase market rewards for sustainability efforts”. Sustainability is a headline issue for company leaders and here to stay.

But it’s not always easy to see how sustainability is integrated into a company’s existing strategy. So, why should your company engage with sustainability and what steps can it take to ensure it is done well?

…one of the biggest issues at the heart of the drive for sustainability is leadership. Implementing the right policies is undoubtedly a “top-down” process, not least because legal rulings have emphatically cast sustainability as a fiduciary duty.

The reasons for adopting sustainability are as diverse as the people and groups upon which companies have an impact. First, there is the clear environmental argument. Governments alone cannot tackle growing environment risk and will need corporates to play their part through their strategies and business models.

The issues driving political leaders have also filtered down to investment managers who have developed deep concerns that companies should be building strategies that factor in environmental, social and governance (ESG) risk. Companies that ignore the issue risk failing to attract capital. A 2015 study by the global benchmarking organisation PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment), conducted with Deutsche Bank Asset Management, showed that among 2,200 studies undertaken since 1970, 63% found a positive link between a company’s ESG performance and financial performance.

There’s also the risk of being left behind, or self-inflicted damage. In an age of instant digital communication news travels fast and a company that fails on sustainability could quickly see stakeholder trust undermined.

Companies that embrace the topic can also create what might be termed “sustainability contagion”: businesses supplying “sustainable” clients must be sustainable themselves, generating a virtuous cascade of sustainability behaviour throughout the supply chain. That means positive results from implemented sustainability policies at one end of the chain, and pressure to comply at the other.

Leadership

But perhaps one of the biggest issues at the heart of the drive for sustainability is leadership. Implementing the right policies is undoubtedly a “top-down” process, not least because legal rulings have emphatically cast sustainability as a fiduciary duty. That makes executive involvement and leadership an imperative. However, involvement of management at the most senior level will also help instil the kind of culture change needed to make sustainability an ingrained part of an organization, and one that goes beyond mere compliance.

Leaders may feel the need to demonstrate the value of a sustainability step-change. This is needed because a full-blooded approach to sustainability could involve rethinking corporate structures, processes and performance measurement. Experts recognise three ways to demonstrate value: risk, reward and recognition.

“Risk” looks at issues such as potential dangers associated with ignoring sustainability such as loss of trust, reputational damage (as alluded to above), legal or regulatory action and fines.

A “rewards”-centred approach casts sustainability as an opportunity to be pursued, as long as policies boost revenues or cut costs, and stakeholders benefit.

Meanwhile, the “recognition” method argues that sharing credit for spreading sustainability policies promotes long-term engagement and responsibility.

Implementation

Getting sustainability policies off the ground can be tricky, particularly because of their multifaceted nature.

recent study into European boards conducted by Board Agenda & Mazars in association with the INSEAD Corporate Governance Centre showed that while there is growing recognition by boards about the importance of sustainability, there is also evidence that they experience challenges about how to implement effective ESG strategies.

Proponents advise the use of “foundation exercises” for helping form the bedrock of sustainability policies. For example, assessing baseline environmental and social performance; analysing corporate management, accountability structures and IT systems; and an examination of material risk and opportunity.

That should provide the basis for policy development. Then comes implementation. This is not always easy, because being sustainable can never be attributed to a single policy. Future-proofing a company has to be an ongoing process underpinned by structures, measures and monitoring.
Policy delivery can be strengthened by the appointment of a chief sustainability officer (CSO) and establishing structures around the role, such as regular reporting to the chief executive and board, as well as the creation of a working committee to manage implementation of policies across the company.

Proponents advise the use of “foundation exercises” for helping form the bedrock of sustainability policies.

Sustainability values will need to be embedded at the heart of policies directing all business activities. And this can be supported through the use of an organisational chart mapping the key policies and processes to be adopted by each part of the business. The chart then becomes a critical ready reckoner for the boardroom and its assessment of progress.

But you can only manage what you measure, and sustainability policies demand the same treatment as any other business development initiative: key metrics accompanying the plan.

But what to measure? Examples include staff training, supply chain optimisation, energy efficiency, clean energy generation, reduced water waste, and community engagement, among many others.

Measuring then enables the creation of targets and these can be embedded in processes such as audits, supplier contracts and executive remuneration. If they are to have an impact, senior management must ensure the metrics have equal weight alongside more traditional measures.

All of this must be underpinned by effective reporting practices that provide a window on how sustainability practices function. And reporting is best supported by automated, straight-through processing, where possible.

Reliable reporting has the added benefit of allowing comparison and benchmarking with peers, if the data is available. The use of globally accepted standards—such as those provided by bodies like the Global Reporting Initiative—build confidence among stakeholders. And management must stay in touch, regularly consulting with the CSO and other stakeholders—customers, investors, suppliers and local communities—to ensure policies are felt in the right places.

Communication

Stakeholders should also hear about company successes, not just deliver feedback. Communicating a sustainability approach can form part of its longevity, as stakeholders hear the good news and develop an expectation of receiving more.

Companies are not expected to achieve all their sustainability goals tomorrow. Some necessarily take time. What is expected is long-term commitment and conviction, honest reporting and steady progress.

Care should be taken, however. Poor communication can be damaging, and a credible strategy will be required, one that considers how to deliver information frequently, honestly and credibly. It will need to take into account regulatory filings and disclosures, and potentially use social media as a means of reaching the right audience.

And that’s because successful sustainability policies are something to shout about. There is enormous pressure on companies to think differently, to reject a blinkered focus only on the bottom line and develop strategies that enable their companies to provide value, not only for shareholders but other stakeholders—society, customers, and suppliers—alike.

Companies are not expected to achieve all their sustainability goals tomorrow. Some necessarily take time. What is expected is long-term commitment and conviction, honest reporting and steady progress. The landscape on which businesses function is changing. They must change with it.

This article has been produced by Board Agenda in collaboration with Azeus Convene, a supporter of Board Agenda.