Le guide Responsabilités des administrateurs au Canada, issu de la collaboration entre Osler et l’Institut des administrateurs de sociétés, est un outil de référence de choix dont tous les administrateurs ont besoin pour comprendre les pratiques exemplaires en matière de gouvernance et pour s’acquitter de leurs responsabilités, dans le contexte actuel des tendances commerciales en constante évolution et des changements dans le marché.
Le guide couvre :
les devoirs et l’obligation de rendre compte des administrateurs, et le rôle des actionnaires
les questions de gouvernance, y compris les conflits d’intérêts des administrateurs, les lois sur les valeurs mobilières et les exigences des marchés boursiers
les obligations d’information des sociétés ouvertes
les questions de financement, de marchés des capitaux et d’offres publiques d’achat
les responsabilités imposées par la loi, y compris les opérations d’initiés, la législation sur l’environnement et les questions d’ordre fiscal
la responsabilité pour les infractions en vertu des lois sur les sociétés
la gestion du risque
Inscrivez-vous pour obtenir un exemplaire en cliquant sur le lien ci-dessous. Il vous sera envoyé par courriel dès sa publication.
Il y a dans le document de PwC un exposé clair des principales tendances en gouvernance au cours des prochaines années. Le site de PwC présente également les chapitres individuels du rapport.
Voici un résumé de l’échantillon des entreprises, suivi d’un rappel des 12 tendances observées. Vous trouverez beaucoup de points communs avec l’article que j’ai publié dans le journal Les Affaires : Gouvernance : 12 tendances à surveiller
Bonne lecture !
In the summer of 2014, 863 public company directors responded to our survey. Of those directors, 70% serve on the boards of companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue, and participants represented nearly two-dozen industries. In PwC’s 2014 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, directors share their views on governance trends that we believe will impact the board of the future, including: board performance and diversity, board priorities and practices, IT and cybersecurity oversight, strategy and risk oversight, and executive compensation and director communications.
Many boards are giving even more attention to enhancing their own performance and acting on issues identified in their self-assessments.
Board composition is scrutinized
Board composition is under pressure to evolve to meet new business challenges and stakeholder expectations. Today’s directors are more focused than ever on ensuring their boards have the right expertise and experience to be effective.
Board diversity gets attention
Stakeholders are more interested in board diversity, and boards are increasingly focused on recruiting directors with diversity of background and experience.
More pressure on board priorities and practices
Director performance continues to face scrutiny from investors, regulators, and other stakeholders, causing board practices to remain in the spotlight.
Activist shareholders get active
With over $100 billion in assets under activist management1, more directors are discussing how to deal with potential activist campaigns.
The influence of emerging IT grows
Companies and directors increasingly see IT as inextricably wed to corporate strategy and the company’s business. IT is now a business issue, not just a technology issue.
Increased concerns about the Achilles’ heel of IT—cybersecurity
Cybersecurity breaches are regularly and prominently in the news. And directors are searching for answers on how to provide effective oversight in this area.
It’s still all about risk management
Risk management is a top priority for investors, and they have high expectations of boards in this regard.
Investors question company strategies
Effective oversight requires that the board receive the right information from management to effectively address key elements of strategy.
Executive compensation remains a hot topic
Boards are devoting even more time and attention to the critical issue of appropriate compensation.
Stakeholders are showing continuing interest in how proxy advisory firms operate.
The interest of stakeholders in the proxy advisory industry is a key trend.
Increasing expectations about director communications
In response, boards must determine their role in stakeholder communications—and evaluate their processes and procedures governing such communications
Aujourd’hui, j’aimerais partager avec vous une étude empirique vraiment très intéressante portant sur deux approches réglementaires à la diversité sur les conseils d’administration:
(1) les quotas ou les mesures ciblées et
(2) l’obligation de divulgation.
Aaron A. Dhir, professeur associé de droit à la Osgoode Hall Law School de Toronto, présente plusieurs réflexions fort pertinentes sur l’expérience norvégienne d’imposition de quotas pour accroître le nombre de femmes sur les conseils d’administration.
Plusieurs règlementations se sont inspirées de cette approche pour prendre en compte cette variable fondamentale. La conclusion de l’auteur au sujet de cette première approche réglementaire est résumée de la façon suivante :
My study of the Norwegian quota model demonstrates the important role diversity can play in enhancing the quality of corporate governance, while also revealing the challenges diversity mandates pose.
En ce qui concerne l’approche basée sur l’obligation de divulgation des mesures de diversité adoptée par la Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), il appert que la règle ne donne aucune définition de la diversité et que les entreprises peuvent l’interpréter comme bon leur semble.
L’étude montre cependant que les organisations ont tendance à définir la diversité de manière très large, notamment en faisant référence à l’expérience antérieure pertinente des administrateurs (qui n’a rien à voir avec les caractéristiques sociodémographiques telles que le genre).
L’auteur avance également que cette réglementation a donné lieu à beaucoup d’efforts de définition de la diversité :
My study shows that “diversity” carries multiple connotations for these firms. My most salient finding, however, is that when interpreting this concept in the absence of regulatory guidance, the dominant corporate discourse is experiential rather than identity-based. Firms most frequently define diversity with reference to a director’s prior experience or other non-identity-based factors rather than his or her socio-demographic characteristics. The data provide a unique window into the potential meanings of “diversity” in the corporate governance setting, as well as the limits of a strategy that permits corporations to give the term their own definition.
L’auteur nous incite à lire les chapitres 1, 4 et 6 qui ont été publiés sur le réseau SSRN (Social Science Research Network). Le chapitre 1 présente l’objet de l’étude, la méthodologie, les deux variables étudiées, les résultats sommaires et les perspectives futures eu égard au débat sur la diversité.
The lack of gender parity in the governance of business corporations has ignited a heated global debate, leading policymakers to wrestle with difficult questions that lie at the intersection of market activity and social identity politics. In my new book, Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity: Corporate Law, Governance, and Diversity (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming in 2015), I draw on semi-structured interviews with corporate board directors in Norway and documentary content analysis of corporate securities filings in the United States to investigate empirically two distinct regulatory models designed to address diversity in the boardroom—quotas and disclosure.
In Chapter 4, recently made available on SSRN, I explore the quota-based approach to achieving gender balance in corporate boardrooms. Quotas and related target-based measures for publicly traded firms are currently in place in a number of countries, including Iceland, Belgium, France, Italy, and Norway and are at different stages of consideration in other jurisdictions, including Canada, the European Union, and Germany.
I present findings from my qualitative, interview-based study of Norwegian corporate directors in order to provide empirical elucidation of how quota-based regimes operate in practice. The identity narratives of Norwegian board members offer particularly rich sources of insight, given that Norway was the first jurisdiction to pursue the quota path and thus has the most mature quota regime. While highly contentious when adopted, the Norwegian quota project unquestionably set the stage for subsequent legislative developments in other countries.
I delve into the lived experiences of Norwegian directors who gained appointments as a result of Norway’s quota law, as well as those who held appointments before the law was enacted. Several questions frame my investigation. How have these individuals subjectively experienced, and made sense of, this intrusive form of regulation? How does legally required gender diversity affect their economic and institutional lives? And how has it shaped boardroom cultural dynamics and decision making, as well as the overall governance fabric of the board?
The forced repopulation of boards along gender lines has disturbed the traditional order of corporate governance systems, dislocating established hierarchies of power in key market-based institutions. Norway represents the paradigmatic case of this disturbance and has set in motion a wave of corporate governance reform unlike any other. As such, it constitutes a fascinating and appropriate case study through which to consider the implications of quota regimes. My study of the Norwegian quota model demonstrates the important role diversity can play in enhancing the quality of corporate governance, while also revealing the challenges diversity mandates pose.
In Chapter 6, also recently made available on SSRN, I explore the disclosure-based approach to addressing diversity in corporate governance. In 2009, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a rule requiring publicly traded firms to report on whether they consider diversity in identifying director nominees and, if so, how. The rule also requires firms that have adopted a diversity policy to describe how they implement the policy and assess its effectiveness. The rule does not define “diversity,” however, leaving it to corporations to give this term meaning.
I present findings from my mixed-methods content analysis of corporate disclosures submitted during the first four years of the rule in order to provide empirical elucidation of how the rule operates in practice. The research sample consists of a hand-collected dataset of the 2010–2013 definitive proxy statements of S&P 100 firms. I am interested in learning how these firms, in responding to the rule, construct the concept of diversity through their public discourse. What does diversity, viewed through the prism of legal regulation, mean to market participants? How do they interpret and understand this socio-political idea in the absence of a regulatory definition? How is diversity constituted and discursively performed?
The SEC’s disclosure rule has caused US corporations to establish a vocabulary of diversity. My study shows that “diversity” carries multiple connotations for these firms. My most salient finding, however, is that when interpreting this concept in the absence of regulatory guidance, the dominant corporate discourse is experiential rather than identity-based. Firms most frequently define diversity with reference to a director’s prior experience or other nonidentity-based factors rather than his or her socio-demographic characteristics. The data provide a unique window into the potential meanings of “diversity” in the corporate governance setting, as well as the limits of a strategy that permits corporations to give the term their own definition.
Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity aims to deepen ongoing policy conversations and offer new insights into the role law can play in reshaping the gendered dynamics of corporate governance cultures. The full version of Chapter 1 is available for download here.
Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés est heureux de vous dévoiler sa 3e série de capsules d’experts, formée de huit entrevues vidéo.
Pendant 3 minutes, un expert du Collège partage une réflexion et se prononce sur un sujet d’actualité lié à la gouvernance. Une capsule est dévoilée chaque semaine.
Aujourd’hui, je vous propose le visionnement des deux plus récentes capsules d’experts qui sont maintenant en ligne. Elles ont pour thèmes « La diversité » par Mme Nicolle Forget, administratrice de sociétés, et « La gestion des risques » par M. Martin Leblanc, CA, CMC, Associé, Services-conseils – Management et Gestion des risques, KPMG.
Que peut faire un actionnaire ou un investisseur pour évaluer la compétence d’un conseil d’administration et se former une opinion sur l’efficacité de son rôle de fiduciaire ?
Voici un article, publié par la rédaction d’Investopedia,qui présente un checklist en cinq points, simple mais fort utile, pour mieux savoir quoi regarder dans la documentation publique.
Bien sûr, votre évaluation ne sera pas nécessairement concluante mais je suis assuré que si vous portez une attention spéciale aux 5 éléments présentés ci-dessous, vous aurez une bien meilleure appréciation des qualités du conseil et de ses administrateurs.
Quels autres facteurs considérez-vous dans l’évaluation des compétences d’un Board ? Bonne lecture !
In theory, the board is responsible to the shareholders and is supposed to govern a company’s management. But in many instances, the board has become a servant of the chief executive officer (CEO), who is typically also the chairman of the board. The role of the board of directors has increasingly come under scrutiny in light of corporate scandals such as those at Enron, WorldCom and HealthSouth, in which the board of directors failed to act in investors’ best interests. Although the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made corporations more accountable, investors should still pay attention to what a corporation’s board of directors is up to. Here we’ll show you what the board of directors can tell you about how a company is being run.
The Checklist According to an October 27, 2003, Wall Street Journal article, a checklist was developed by the Corporate Library to help investors evaluate the objectivity and effectiveness of a board. According to this checklist, investors should examine:
1. Size of the Board
There is no universal agreement on the optimum size of a board of directors. A large number of members represents a challenge in terms of using them effectively and/or having any kind of meaningful individual participation. According to the Corporate Library’s study, the average board size is 9.2 members, and most boards range from 3 to 31 members. Some analysts think the ideal size is seven.
In addition, there are two critical board committees that must be made up of independent members:
The minimum number for each committee is three. This means that a minimum of six board members is needed so that no one is on more than one committee. Having members doing double duty may compromise the important wall between audit and compensation, which helps avoid any conflicts of interest. Members serving on a number of other boards may not devote adequate time to their responsibilities.
The seventh member is the chairperson of the board. It’s the responsibility of the chairperson to make sure the board is functioning properly and the CEO is fulfilling his or her duty and following the directives of the board. A conflict of interest is created if the CEO is also the chairperson of the board.
To staff any additional committees, such as nominating or governance, additional people may be necessary. However, having more than nine members may make the board too big to function effectively. (For background reading, see The Basics Of Corporate Structure.)
2. The Degree of Independence: Insiders and Outsiders
A key attribute of an effective board is that it is comprised of a majority of independent outsiders. While not necessarily true, a board with a majority of insiders is often viewed as being stacked with sycophants, especially in cases where the CEO is also the chairman of the board.
An outsider is someone who has never worked at the company, is not related to any of the key employees and has never worked for a major supplier, customer or service provider, such as lawyers, accountants, consultants, investment bankers, etc. While this definition of independent outsiders is clear, you’d be surprised at the number of times it is misapplied. Too often, the « outsider » label is given to the retired CEO or a relative when that person is actually an insider with conflicts of interest.The Wall Street Journal article found that independent outsiders made up 66% of all boards and 72% of Standard & Poor’s (S&P) boards. The larger the number of outside board members the better. This makes the board more independent and allows it to provide a higher level of corporate governance to shareholders, particularly if the position of chairman of the board is separated from the CEO and is held by an outsider.
3. Committees
There are four important board committees: executive, audit, compensation and nominating. There may be more committees depending on corporate philosophy, which is determined by an ethics committee and special circumstances relating to a particular company’s line of business. Let’s take a closer look at the four main committees:
The Executive Committee
The executive committee, is made up of a small number of board members that are readily accessible and easily convened, to decide on matters subject to board consideration but must be decided on expeditiously, such as a quarterly meeting. Executive committee proceedings are always reported to and reviewed by the full board. Just as with the full board, investors should prefer that independent directors make up the majority of an executive committee.
The Audit Committee
The audit committee works with the auditors to make sure that the books are correct and that there are no conflicts of interest between the auditors and the other consulting firms employed by the company. Ideally, the chair of the audit committee is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Often, a CPA is not on the audit committee, let alone on the board. The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) requires that the audit committee include a financial expert, but this qualification is typically met by a retired banker, even though that person’s ability to catch fraud may be questionable. The audit committee should meet at least four times a year in order to review the most recent audit. An additional meeting should be held if there are other issues that need to be addressed
The Compensation Committee.
The compensation committee is responsible for setting the pay of top executives. It seems obvious that the CEO or other people with conflicts of interest should not be on this committee, but you’d be surprised at the number of companies that allow just that. It is important to check if the members of the compensation board are also on the compensation committees of other firms because of the potential conflict of interest. The compensation committee should meet at least twice a year. Having only one meeting may be a sign that the committee meets just to approve a pay package that was created by the CEO or a consultant without much debate. (To learn more, read Evaluating Executive Compensation.)
The Nominating Committee
This committee is responsible for nominating people to the board. The nomination process should aim to bring on people with independence and a skill set currently lacking on the board.M
4. Other Commitments and Time Constraints
The number of boards and committees a board member is on is a key consideration when judging the effectiveness of a member.
The following chart from the survey shows the time commitments of board members of the 1,700 largest U.S. public companies according the the study’s 2003 data. This indicates that the majority of board members sit on no more than three boards. What this data does not specify is the number of committees to which these people belong.
You’ll often find that independent board members serve on both the audit and compensation committees and are also on three or more other boards. You have to wonder how much time a board member can devote to a company’s business if the person is on multiple boards. This situation also raises questions about the supply of independent outside directors. Are these people pulling double duty because there’s a lack of qualified outsiders?
5. Related Transactions
Companies must disclose any transactions with executives and directors in a financial note entitled « Related Transactions. » This discloses actions or relationships that cause conflicts of interest, such as doing business with a director’s company or having relatives of the CEO receiving professional fees from the company.
The Bottom Line
The composition and performance of a board of directors says a lot about its responsibilities to a company’s shareholders. A board loses credibility if its objectivity and independence are compromised by material shortcomings in this checklist. Investors are poorly served by substandard governance practices.
Selon une étude du The Wall Street Journal publié par Joann S. Lublin, les entreprises qui comptent moins d’administrateurs ont de meilleurs résultats que les entreprises de plus grandes tailles.
Bien qu’il n’y ait pas nécessairement de relation de type cause à effet, il semble assez clair que la tendance est à la diminution de nombre d’administrateurs sur les conseils d’administration des entreprises publiques américaines. Pourquoi en est-il ainsi ?
Il y a de nombreuses raisons dont l’article du WSJ, ci-dessous, traite. Essentiellement, les membres de conseils de petites tailles :
sont plus engagés dans les affaires de l’entité
sont plus portés à aller en profondeur dans l’analyse stratégique
entretiennent des relations plus fréquentes et plus harmonieuses avec la direction
ont plus de possibilités de communiquer entre eux
exercent une surveillance plus étroite des activités de la direction
sont plus décisifs, cohésif et impliqués.
Les entreprises du domaine financier ont traditionnellement des conseils de plus grandes tailles mais, encore là, les plus petits conseils ont de meilleurs résultats.
La réduction de la taille se fait cependant très lentement mais la tendance est résolument à la baisse. Il ne faut cependant pas compter sur la haute direction pour insister sur la diminution de la taille des C.A. car il semblerait que plusieurs PCD s’accommodent très bien d’un C.A. plus imposant !
Il faut cependant réaliser que la réduction du nombre d’administrateurs peut constituer un obstacle à la diversité si l’on ne prend pas en compte cette importante variable. Également, il faut noter que le C.A. doit avoir un président du conseil expérimenté, possédant un fort leadership. Un conseil de petite taille, présidé par une personne inepte, aura des résultats à l’avenant !
Voici deux autres documents, partagés par Richard Leblanc sur son groupe de discussion LinkedIn Boards and Advisors, qui pourraient vous intéresser :
Size counts, especially for boards of the biggest U.S. businesses.
Companies with fewer board members reap considerably greater rewards for their investors, according to a new study by governance researchers GMI Ratings prepared for The Wall Street Journal. Small boards at major corporations foster deeper debates and more nimble decision-making, directors, recruiters and researchers said. Take Apple Inc. In the spring when BlackRock founding partner Sue Wagner was up for a seat on the board of the technology giant, she met nearly every director within just a few weeks. Such screening processes typically take months.
But Apple directors move fast because there only are eight of them. After her speedy vetting, Ms. Wagner joined Apple’s board in July. She couldn’t be reached for comment.
Smaller boards at major corporations have more nimble decision-making processes, directors, recruiters and academic researchers say. Eric Palma
Among companies with a market capitalization of at least $10 billion, typically those with the smallest boards produced substantially better shareholder returns over a three-year period between the spring of 2011 and 2014 when compared with companies with the biggest boards, the GMI analysis of nearly 400 companies showed.
Companies with small boards outperformed their peers by 8.5 percentage points, while those with large boards underperformed peers by 10.85 percentage points. The smallest board averaged 9.5 members, compared with 14 for the biggest. The average size was 11.2 directors for all companies studied, GMI said.
« There’s more effective oversight of management with a smaller board, » said Jay Millen, head of the board and CEO practice for recruiters DHR International. « There’s no room for dead wood. »
Many companies are thinning their board ranks to improve effectiveness, Mr. Millen said. He recently helped a consumer-products business shrink its 10-person board to seven, while bringing on more directors with emerging-markets expertise.
GMI’s results, replicated across 10 industry sectors such as energy, retail, financial services and health care, could have significant implications for corporate governance.
Small boards are more likely to dismiss CEOs for poor performance—a threat that declines significantly as boards grow in numbers, said David Yermack, a finance professor at New York University’s business school who has studied the issue.
It’s tough to pinpoint precisely why board size affects corporate performance, but smaller boards at large-cap companies like Apple and Netflix Inc. appear to be decisive, cohesive and hands-on. Such boards typically have informal meetings and few committees. Apple directors, known for their loyalty to founder Steve Jobs, have forged close ties with CEO Tim Cook, according to a person familiar with the company. Mr. Cook frequently confers with individual directors between board meetings « to weigh the pros and cons of an issue, » an outreach effort that occurs quickly thanks to the board’s slim size, this person said.
Mr. Cook took this approach while mulling whether to recruit Angela Ahrendts, then CEO of luxury-goods company Burberry Group PLC for Apple’s long vacant position of retail chief. Private chats with board members helped him « test the thought » of recruiting her, the person said. She started in April.
Ms. Wagner, Apple’s newest director, replaced a retiring one. The board wants no more than 10 members to keep its flexibility intact, according to the person familiar with the company, adding that even « eye contact and candor change » with more than 10 directors.
Apple returns outperformed technology sector peers by about 37 cumulative percentage points during the three years tracked by GMI. An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.
Netflix, with seven directors, demonstrated equally strong returns, outperforming sector peers by about 32 percentage points. Board members of the big video-streaming service debate extensively before approving important management moves, said Jay Hoag, its lead independent director.
« We get in-depth, » he said. « That’s easier with a small group. »
Netflix directors spent about nine months discussing a proposed price increase, with some pushing back hard on executives about the need for an increase, Mr. Hoag said. Netflix increased prices this spring for new U.S. customers of the company’s streaming video plan, its first price bump since 2011.
A board twice as big wouldn’t have time for « diving deeper into the business on things that matter, » Mr. Hoag said.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, les coordonnées d’un article d’Alan Mak et Andrew Hill sur le Blogue du FT du 2 juillet 2014. Les auteurs se questionnent sur la place des jeunes (millennials) dans les conseils d’administration du futur.
Vous y découvrirez plusieurs raisons qui militent en faveur de la nomination de jeunes au C.A. (Mak) ainsi que la prise de position d’un auteur qui ne croit pas à la contribution des jeunes sur des C.A., principalement à cause de leur manque d’expérience (Hill). Comme vous vous en doutez, je partage entièrement le point de vue de Mak qui propose l’engagement des jeunes sur les conseils.
La lecture des arguments pour et des arguments contre est intéressante. Qu’en pensez-vous ?
Lord Davies in his report “Women on Boards” rightly said the best boards contain “a mix of voices [that] must include women”. It should also include millennials.
Today’s rapidly changing marketplace is more complex than ever and businesses that want to stay competitive, especially in customer-facing sectors, need Generation Y to help them deal with the big trends, from the rise of digitally empowered consumers to the febrile post-financial crisis business environment.
The business case for younger directors is strong. Generation Y, also known as millennials, are aged 18-35 and, at 2bn people, are the world’s biggest demographic group. By 2018 they will have the biggest spending power of any age group, Deloitte says. And three in four millennials say they influence the purchasing decisions of other generations. So, every business needs to understand Generation Y’s behaviour and aspirations, and younger, suitably qualified directors can be their champion in the boardroom.
Meanwhile, better decisions are made when companies draw on the widest possible range of talent regardless of age, and when directors bring to bear the broadest range of experiences, perspectives and lifestyles. In this context, “diversity” must include generational diversity, not just gender diversity. Adding a Generation Y perspective can be a powerful antidote to age-related groupthink. For example, millennials are more likely to take a longer-term approach to risk taking because they have to live with the financial and reputational consequences of failure when older colleagues may not.
The financial crisis caused an irreversible cultural and structural shift. Corporations from banks to supermarkets are redefining their values and business models to become more accountable and sustainable. As David Jones explains in his book Who Cares Wins, for business, “the new price of doing well is doing good”.
Generation Y instinctively understands this new paradigm, and they are best placed to act as boardroom cultural translators.
Such rapid cultural change is itself largely driven by fast technological and demographic change. Social media have given today’s consumers more information about how companies do business than ever before. Whereas the industrial revolution empowered the corporation, the digital revolution empowered the consumer. As Jones observes, “ … there’s not been another time in history when the youngest people understood the most about what is going on”. Companies that fail to understand this new “good business zeitgeist” find their brands and share price diminished.
Generation Y directors add value by helping their companies to navigate this volatile, Twitter-driven landscape. That is why Starbucks appointed social media expert Clara Shih, then 29, to its main board.
Meanwhile, globalisation has created increasingly complex decision-making environments that require new skills and fresh insights – for example, into emerging markets and new technologies – that were simply not around, or as needed in the past. Every company must now balance Gen X’s experience with Gen Y’s inherently global outlook, digital aptitude and commitment to life-long learning. Putting younger leaders into the boardroom helps that development while sending a wider message that an organisation rewards talent and ambition.
Pessimists may say younger figures lack the industry knowledge or operational experience to step into the boardroom. These qualities can all be developed and naysayers should listen to Peter Cave-Gibbs, former London head of recruiter Heidrick & Struggles: “Board chairmen want outstanding leaders who can help their business succeed in today’s global marketplace. Gen Y talent is highly educated, multilingual, and comfortable with change and technology. They are changing the way business is done: age is just a number in business now.”
. . .
No
Andrew Hill
Boards are changing. The devastating economic and financial crisis has exposed the risk of groupthink in the boardroom and the weaknesses in established corporate governance, as pursued by establishment people, who, let’s face it, are still predominantly “white, male and stale”. Business logic and a simple sense of equity dictate that the gender and ethnic balance in the boardroom should alter. Research increasingly suggests that diverse teams come up with better ideas.
So, if more women and people from ethnic minorities are becoming non-executive directors, for these and other excellent reasons, shouldn’t large companies invite more young people to step up to the board?
No, they shouldn’t, and here’s why.
First, the immediate priority for large companies ought to be to assemble a balanced board with an accumulation of experience that will help supervise the executive team. By definition, younger candidates have less experience.
What ambitious and talented young people know could still be useful to the board and to the company. Millennials may help a consumer products company tailor its offering to younger customers.
While the boardroom dinosaurs are struggling with their iPads, they could help a natural resources company to understand coming risks to its reputation (posed, for example, by social media protests). But these contributions can be sought in better and more efficient ways than by inviting a representative into the boardroom. Smart companies are already tapping social media – the natural heir to focus groups – for a quantitative assessment of youth trends. Phil Clarke, Tesco’s chief executive, has a 20-something staffer in his office, precisely to keep him updated on such trends.
I am as suspicious as anyone of the power of vested interests. When a headhunter recently told me that a boardroom should “not be trying to reflect the demographic” and warned that 20-something non-executives with little corporate experience might “throw in grenades that are inappropriate”, I was almost ready to help them pull the pin.
Boards do need shaking up and young people with proven records of relevant achievement could have what it takes to hold their own in a boardroom packed with company veterans. But these candidates will be few and far between. Youth per se is no qualification.
Second, a bigger priority for boards is to reflect the gender and ethnic mix around them without compromising on experience. I would choose, say, a female executive informed by diverse experiences ahead of a promising younger businessperson with only youth on his or her side.
Finally, if companies want to draw on the energy and inspiration brought by younger people – and they should – they should employ them and promote them to executive roles. It may not have dawned on aspiring Gen Y non-executives, but the board is not the engine of creativity, innovation and strategy at big companies: it is a regulator of the engine, and an important sounding board for ideas brought by the executive team.
Most entrepreneurial young people I know would simply be frustrated by boardroom politics and bluster. Those young managers who feel they should start their non-executive portfolio in their 20s have got their careers back to front: they should be directing their best efforts to founding start-ups, or at least changing the way companies work, not the way they are supervised. If it is revolution they seek, they stand a better chance of pursuing it from the bottom up than from the top down.
Voici un bref condensé préparé par Roger Baker, de IoD (UK) et diffusé par Béatrice RICHEZ-BAUM, secrétaire générale de European Confederation of Directors’ Associations (ecoDa), relatif aux nouvelles directives contenues dans un code de conduite à l’intention des firmes conseils en recrutement de cadres et d’administrateurs de sociétés.
Ce nouveau code, dit volontaire, met l’accent sur la reconnaissance des efforts des sociétés du FSTE 350 eu égard à la planification de la relève des administrateurs, notamment des candidates féminines. Cette approche « soft » rejoint tout à fait le courant de pensée britannique en matière de changement dans le domaine de la gouvernance corporative (Comply or Explain).
The new Code of Conduct for Executive Search firms
The new Enhanced Voluntary Code of Conduct for Executive Search Firms gives recognition to those firms who have been most successful in the recruitment of women to FSTE 350 boards. It builds on the terms of the standard voluntary code and will also recognize the outstanding efforts of search firms working to build the pipeline of FTSE board directors of the future.
The Enhanced Voluntary Code was drawn up by the search firms themselves working with the Davies Steering Group. It contains 10 new provisions, from launching initiatives to support aspiring women to sharing of best practice and running awareness programmes within their own firms.
Under the new provisions, it is specified that:
Search firms should support chairmen and their nomination committees in developing medium-term succession plans that identify the balance of experience and skills that they will need to recruit for over the next two to three years to maximize board effectiveness. This time frame will allow a broader view to be established by looking at the whole board, not individual hires; this should facilitate increased flexibility in candidate specifications.
When taking a specific brief, search firms should look at overall board composition and, in the context of the board’s agreed aspirational goals on gender balance and diversity more broadly, explore with the chairman if recruiting women directors is a priority on this occasion.
During the selection process, search firms should provide appropriate support, in particular to first-time candidates, to prepare them for interviews and guide them through the process.
Search firms should provide advice to clients on best practice in induction and ‘onboarding’ processes to help new board directors settle quickly into their roles.
Voici un lien qui vous donnera plus de détails sur ce nouveau code ainsi qu’une vidéo de Viviane Reeding sur l’importance à accorder à l’accroissement du nombre de candidatures féminines aux conseils d’administration des sociétés européennes :
J’ai répertorié un article d’Andrew Saunders paru dans Management Today en juin 2014 qui décrit toute l’importance du rôle de leader du président du conseil d’administration (PCA).
Selon l’auteur, les fonctions du PCA sont de plus en plus reconnues, au point où il est souvent plus facile de trouver un PDG qu’un grand leader du conseil. L’article présente la fonction de PCA comme consubstantiel au succès de l’entreprise et montre les caractéristiques-clés de ces grands leaders.
J’ai souvent fait référence à l’importance accrue des présidents de conseil dans mes billets précédents. Cet article va plus loin, et plus en détail, sur ce qui fait le succès d’un bon patron du conseil.
Voici un extrait de cet excellent article que je vous invite à lire.
« The chief executive may get the glory and the salary, but leading the board is an increasingly important role, requiring subtlety, maturity and an iron grip on the agenda »
By contrast, the chairman’s role is less obvious and much less well understood. The task of running the board rather than running the company can appear limited and process-heavy, a lot of dull admin to be tackled while the CEO has all the fun.
But there is much more to it than that: a good chairman is at least as important for the long-term prosperity of a business as a good CEO, and often harder to find. How different might the outcome at Manchester United have been if veteran manager Sir Alex Ferguson had not been allowed to pick his own successor?
A strong chairman should influence the decision-making process, if not always its outcome, greatly for the better. And yet, by comparison with the wide-ranging executive authority enjoyed by the CEO, the chairman’s powers are distinctly limited.
‘As chairman you only really have absolute control of two things,’ says Roger Parry, the chairman of MSQ Partners and a former chairman of Johnston Press and Future Publishing, among others. ‘Firstly, you have (or should have) a lot of influence over hire and fire – you pretty much get to decide who is on the board.
‘And the second crucial thing is that, in the board meeting, you can control what is discussed and for how long. Not only the agenda itself, but the amount of time to be spent on each item. A good deal of the agenda is fixed – you have to discuss health and safety, performance against budget, remuneration and so on – but the weight of emphasis can be shifted by the chairman.’
GOOD CHAIRMEN
Do
Pick NEDs who are sufficiently diverse and strong-minded to challenge the executive directors.
Maintain a five-year perspective. The executive directors are focused on this year, the senior managers on this month. Your job is to take a longer view.
Support chief execs as best you can, know their personal circumstances, priorities and how long they want to stay.
Put your network and wider business experience at the disposal of the board.
Don’t
Dole out non-exec jobs to your old mates.
Get too chummy with CEOs: if you go on family holidays together, it will be much harder to sack them if and when the time comes.
Pull rank on a director in front of their boardroom colleagues.
Ever let the words: ‘This is how we did it when I was the chief executive …’ pass your lips in a board meeting.
Ce document phare, publié en juin 2014 par CPA Canada*, sous la plume de Don Taylor, est un outil précieux, voire indispensable, pour tout administrateur d’OBNL. Les administrateurs de sociétés sont exposés à un cadre conceptuel vraiment révélateur eu égard à la mise en œuvre de l’organisation ou au raffinement de la gouvernance d’un organisme à but non lucratif.
On y trouvera également un recueil des principales questions que les administrateurs d’OBNL doivent se poser en siégeant sur ces conseils.
Si vous êtes impliqué (engagé) dans la gouvernance d’un OBNL, je suis persuadé que cette publication est pour vous. Bonne lecture !|
Le Conseil sur la surveillance des risques et la gouvernance des Comptables professionnels agréés du Canada (CPA Canada) a préparé le présent guide afin d’aider les administrateurs d’organismes sans but lucratif (OSBL) à s’assurer qu’un bon cadre de gouvernance est en place, de manière à favoriser la productivité, la reddition de comptes et le succès de ces organismes dans la réalisation de leur mission.
English: CPA Global Logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Voici les principales étapes qui seront abordées pour guider les administrateurs d’OSBL dans l’élaboration ou la mise au point d’un tel cadre :
• compréhension des exigences et du contexte législatifs;
• conception du cadre de gouvernance;
• mise en œuvre du cadre de gouvernance;
• établissement d’une saine dynamique au sein du conseil;
• suivi, apprentissage et amélioration sur une base continue.
Le guide propose également des questions que les administrateurs peuvent poser pour savoir si le cadre de gouvernance et les processus connexes de l’OSBL sont efficaces et adaptés aux besoins particuliers de celui-ci. Nous encourageons aussi les administrateurs à formuler d’autres questions selon la situation particulière de l’OSBL en question.
Ci-dessous, l’extrait d’un article très simple sur les devoirs attendus de la part des actionnaires. Si vous avez décidé d’investir dans une entreprise, vous possédez une part de la propriété de celle-ci !
Il est donc important de lire la documentation fournie par le conseil d’administration et par la direction de l’entreprise afin de vous former une opinion sur sa gouvernance, et vous devriez vous faire un devoir d’exercer vos droits de votes.
L’article récemment publié par The Canadian Press saura-t-il éveiller chez vous le sens de la responsabilité de l’actionnaire ? En ce qui me concerne, j’ai décidé, il y a quelques années, de me faire un devoir de lire les documents préparatoires à l’AGA et de voter, par la poste, sur les items de l’ordre du jour qui sollicitent l’assentiment des actionnaires.
Documents sent to shareholders ahead of the meeting can include the management proxy circular, annual information form and the company’s annual report. The information form and annual report give the financial statements and an update by management on the business and the direction for the company — both key documents for shareholders.
The proxy circular includes information related to the annual meeting, including the nominees for the board of directors and the appointment of the auditors. It can also include shareholder proposals or major changes at the company that require shareholder approval.
Eleanor Farrell, director of the Office of the Investor at the Ontario Securities Commission, says shareholders have the right to vote on matters that affect the company, including the election of the board of directors. “That is a very important governance piece for the company,” Farrell says.
“The board is the one that approves the strategic plan. It sets the direction of the company. They appoint the CEO, they evaluate the CEO and they also approve the compensation plan.” Farrell says if shareholders don’t approve of a nominated director they can withhold their vote and, at most large companies, if a majority of the votes cast withhold a vote for a particular director, that director would be forced to step aside.
“Shareholders in the last few years have certainly become and gotten a lot more powerful and a lot more powers, I would say,” Farrell said. “Corporate governance has been a very big concern for institutional investors, certainly, and companies are much more concerned about corporate governance.”
The information circulars also include detailed descriptions about how much the company’s directors receive in compensation and what the senior executives are paid in salary, shares or options, as well as the size of their bonuses and the value of any other perks. The circular will also include how the board arrived at that compensation as well as comparisons with previous years. Certain provisions, such as how much a chief executive will receive if the company is taken over or if they are let go, are also often included.
Voici un excellent article paru sur le blogue de Josse Tores, un auteur reconnu pour ses qualités d’influenceur, de conférencier et d’éditeur. M. Tores explique bien l’importance pour tout entrepreneur de se doter d’un conseil aviseur.
L’article fait état de huit facteurs qui contribuent à l’efficacité d’un conseil aviseur. Vous trouverez ci-dessous un sommaire des 8 caractéristiques.
Je vous conseille de prendre le temps de lire ce court article.
Advisory boards are used by the best entrepreneurs as a way to fill knowledge gaps with subject matter experts. Advisory board members are not directors in the traditional sense. Advisory board members do not serve a governance function and do not represent shareholders or other stakeholders. An advisory board’s role is simply to provide advice to the entrepreneur relative to achieving business goals.
Business in London (Photo credit: Stuck in Customs)
At its most basic level an advisory board acts as a sounding board for the business owner. At its best, an advisory board provides expertise, guidance, and business development opportunities. In all cases, the advisory board provides the entrepreneur a group of experts with whom to talk about opportunities, challenges, and next steps.
The following are 8 tips to creating an effective advisory board:
1. Have a Purpose: “Management by objective works – if you know the objectives. Ninety percent of the time you don’t.” – Peter Drucker
2. Recruit Doubters: “The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism.” – George Jean Nathan
3. Leverage the Network: “The purpose of human life is to serve, and to show compassion and the will to help others.” – Albert Schweitzer
4. Write It Down: “A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.” – Samuel Goldwyn
5. Time is Money: “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” – Warren Buffett
6. Keep It Intimate: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead
7. Maximize Value: “Success depends upon previous preparation, and without such preparation there is sure to be failure.” – Confucius
8. Ongoing Communication: “Number one, cash is king…number two, communicate…number three, buy or bury the competition.” – Jack Welch
Entrepreneurs should consider forming an advisory group as early in the life of the business as possible. Advisory boards should be dynamic, changing composition as challenges change. Advisors should know their role may be temporary. They should be recognized and praised by the entrepreneur to ensure they remain engaged and involved. Above all else, advisors should recognize that they are there to provide advice to the entrepreneur and not to govern the business. Utilizing these eight tips enables an entrepreneur to achieve greater success in a shorter amount of time.
Guy Le Péchon, associé gérantde Gouvernance & Structures vient de faire paraître dans le journal LesEchos.fr, une piste de réflexion sur le rajeunissement des conseils d’administration qui, je crois, mériterait d’être expérimentées et pourraient changer le processus de gouvernance des entreprises.
Quelles entreprises ont déjà mis en place des processus de renouvellement similaire ? Quelles seront les entreprises novatrices en matière de diversification des conseils ?
Alors, comment procéder ? L’approche suggérée par ce billet par Gouvernance & Structures est, sous la houlette du conseil d’administration, de créer un conseil de jeunes. Avec des objectifs un peu différents, certaines municipalités utilisent cette approche. Ce conseil de jeunes serait composé d’une dizaine bénévoles de 18 à 25 ans, défrayés des frais éventuels. Ils seraient recrutés par annonces Internet pour 3 ans (avec renouvellement d’un tiers d’entre eux chaque années) en visant la parité femmes / hommes et une large diversité de milieu d’origine. Ils seraient pilotés par le secrétaire du conseil d’administration aidé par un responsable RH.
« Le Conseil de Classe » (Philippe Danvin) Compagnie Raymond Pradel (Photo credit: saigneurdeguerre)
Le conseil, en leur fournissant la documentation nécessaire, leur demanderait, disons trois fois par an, de réfléchir à un thème examiné à un prochain conseil et de faire des propositions. On peut penser aux questions sur lesquelles les jeunes peuvent être sensibilisés; technologies nouvelles dont réseaux sociaux et protection des données, écologie, éthique, international… Une fois par an, sur un de ces thèmes, serait organisé une demi-journée d’échange direct avec présence physique des membres du conseil d’administration à l’occasion d’une de ses réunions.
La formule serait légère et n’entraînerait pas de dépenses importantes, elle permettrait aux membres du conseil d’administration, dans un cadre souple et convivial, d’être positivement et concrètement confrontés aux idées de jeunes et pourquoi pas d’en retenir certaines pour mise en application. Les jeunes en tireraient sûrement un profit personnel, et indirectement leurs proches.
En effet, ils bénéficieraient ainsi d’une ouverture sur la « Corporate Gouvernance » des entreprises et leurs hauts dirigeants. L’entreprise pourrait incidemment dans ce cadre repérer des jeunes talents à embaucher plus tard. La société pourrait utiliser cette approche pour améliorer son image de marque, en particulier auprès de jeunes. Bien des discours et écrits prônent l’innovation, et comme on commence à le savoir, l’innovation n’est pas seulement technologique, elle peut être aussi organisationnelle et sociale.
Plusieurs personnes souhaitent occuper un poste sur un conseil d’administration mais ne savent pas comment procéder pour y arriver. Depuis que je suis impliqué dans la formation des administrateurs de sociétés et dans la publication de ce blogue en gouvernance, c’est la question qui m’est le plus souvent posée.
J’ai déjà abordé ce sujet au cours de mes billets antérieurs. Aujourd’hui, je veux à nouveau porter à votre attention trois références très concretes à ce propos.
Le premier article proposé a été publié le 9 janvier 2013 dans Business Insider; il traite de questions que toutes les personnes intéressées à siéger sur un C.A. se posent :
Quelles raisons m’inciteraient à siéger à un conseil d’administration ?
Quelles actions dois-je poser pour obtenir un poste ?
Dois-je viser un poste rémunéré ou un poste sur un conseil d’OBNL ?
L’article ci-dessous tente précisément de répondre à ces questions :
« So here’s a question for you: Do you have a line in your resume stating you’re on a board of directors? Wait, you say. I have no experience, no connections, no way I could possibly do that!The truth is, many professionals don’t think of offering their services to a board until late into their career. But they could’ve reaped the career benefits of being on a board long before that.
2011 Board of Directors Retreat (Photo credit: sfbike)
Don’t expect to be appointed to a public company board seat and receive $200,000 in annual compensation and stock options. When you start your search, you will find many more available positions if you’re willing to work for free. Penelope Trunk offers a series of questions to help you decide if working for free is a good option for you, including :
Who are you going to work with on the board ?
What’s the scope of the projects you will be handling ?
How will you be able to leverage your experience on the board ?
Bottom line: serving on a not-for-profit board can give you a taste of whether you enjoy being a board member. Are you ready to raise your game? Sitting on a board isn’t out of reach for you. You can do this ! »
________________________________________________
Le deuxième article proposé a été publié le 10 janvier 2013 sur le site de 2020 Women onBoards. Il aborde les étapes concrètes à accomplir afin de se dénicher un poste sur un C.A. Vous trouverez, ci-après, le lien vers l’article ainsi qu’une liste des gestes à poser.
Veuillez lire l’article au complet pour mieux comprendre la portée de ces actions.
« One of the things we learned from our National Conversation on Board Diversity on 12/12/12 is that people want more tactical information on how to get on a board of directors. So, just how do you crack the code? Here are a few tips to get you going. Make it part of your New Years’ resolution!
Make your intentions known
Think about industries you know about and identify companies in those industries
Make a short list of directors
Communicate your interest
Be Informed
Network with a search firm
Don’t waste anyone’s time
Be Patient »
___________________________________________
La troisième référence est un très bon article de James Citrin, Senior Director de SpencerStuart,publié sur mon blogue le 17 novembre 2012. C’est certainement un article susceptible d’intéresser plusieurs personnes désirant décrocher un poste sur un conseil d’administration.
Les diplômés et les diplômées des programmes de formation en gouvernance de sociétés, tels que le Collèges des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS), le Directors College (DC) et l’Institute of Corporate Directors(ICD), sont particulièrement invités (es) à lire ce billet d’expert, mais aussi à suivre les discussions sur son Blogue. Voici, ci-dessous, un extrait de l’article :
“You’re a sitting chief executive officer who wants to see how another company’s board governs. Or you’re an aspiring CEO who wants to benefit from a valuable professional development opportunity and expand your marketability. Perhaps you are a newly retired executive who wants to stay active and connected. Or maybe you are a functional leader who wants to contribute your expertise in exchange for gaining a broader strategic perspective. You may even be a CEO or chief HR officer looking for ways to improve your own company’s succession planning by getting your CEO-ready executives boardroom experience. Whether it is one of these or any other number of reasons, many of today’s senior executives would like to join a corporate board of directors. The irony is that while much has been written about the legitimate difficulties of companies finding qualified and interested directors for their boards, there are a growing number of prospective directors who would be all too happy to serve. If you are one of these prospective directors, the question is how position yourself and navigate the nuances of the director selection process to get placed on a board”.
L’auteur propose six étapes à suivre. Lire l’article pour plus de détails.
Quels sont les principes fondamentaux de la bonne gouvernance ? Voilà un sujet bien d’actualité, une question fréquemment posée, laquelle appelle, trop souvent, des réponses complexes et peu utiles pour ceux qui siègent sur des conseils d’administration.
L’article de Jo Iwasaki, paru sur le site du NewStateman, a l’avantage de résumer très succinctement les cinq (5) grands principes qui doivent animer et inspirer les administrateurs de sociétés.
Les principes évoqués dans l’article sont simples et directs; ils peuvent même paraître simplistes mais, à mon avis, ils devraient servir de puissants guides de référence à tous les administrateurs de sociétés.
Les cinq principes retenus dans l’article sont les suivants :
Un solide engagement du conseil (leadership);
Une grande capacité d’action liée au mix de compétences, expertises et savoir être;
Une reddition de compte efficace envers les parties prenantes;
Un objectif de création de valeur et une distribution équitable entre les principaux artisans de la réussite;
De solides valeurs d’intégrité et de transparence susceptibles de faire l’objet d’un examen minutieux de la part des parties prenantes.
« What board members need to remind themselves is that they are collectively responsible for the long-term success of their company. This may sound obvious but it is not always recognised ».
Our suggestion is to get back to the fundamental principles of good governance which board members should bear in mind in carrying out their responsibilities. If there are just a few, simple and short principles, board members can easily refer to them when making decisions without losing focus. Such a process should be open and dynamic.
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
An effective board should head each company. The Board should steer the company to meet its business purpose in both the short and long term.
Capability
The Board should have an appropriate mix of skills, experience and independence to enable its members to discharge their duties and responsibilities effectively.
Accountability
The Board should communicate to the company’s shareholders and other stakeholders, at regular intervals, a fair, balanced and understandable assessment of how the company is achieving its business purpose and meeting its other responsibilities.
Sustainability
The Board should guide the business to create value and allocate it fairly and sustainably to reinvestment and distributions to stakeholders, including shareholders, directors, employees and customers.
Integrity
The Board should lead the company to conduct its business in a fair and transparent manner that can withstand scrutiny by stakeholders.
We kept them short, with purpose, but we also kept them aspirational. None of them should be a surprise – they might be just like you have on your board. Well, why not share and exchange our ideas – the more we debate, the better we remember the principles which guide our owbehaviour.
De son côté, l’Ordre des administrateurs agréés du Québec (OAAQ) a retenu six (6) valeurs fondamentales qui devraient guider les membres dans l’accomplissement de leurs tâches de professionnels. Il est utile de les rappeler dans ce billet :
Transparence
La transparence laisse paraître la réalité tout entière, sans qu’elle ne soit altérée ou biaisée. Il n’existe d’autre principe plus vertueux que la transparence de l’acte administratif par l’administrateur qui exerce un pouvoir au nom de son détenteur; celui qui est investi d’un pouvoir doit rendre compte de ses actes à son auteur.
Essentiellement, l’administrateur doit rendre compte de sa gestion au mandant ou autre personne ou groupe désigné, par exemple, à un conseil d’administration, à un comité de surveillance ou à un vérificateur. L’administrateur doit également agir de façon transparente envers les tiers ou les préposés pouvant être affectés par ses actes dans la mesure où le mandant le permet et qu’il n’en subit aucun préjudice.
Continuité
La continuité est ce qui permet à l’administration de poursuivre ses activités sans interruption. Elle implique l’obligation du mandataire de passer les pouvoirs aux personnes et aux intervenants désignés pour qu’ils puissent remplir leurs obligations adéquatement.
La continuité englobe aussi une perspective temporelle. L’administrateur doit choisir des avenues et des solutions qui favorisent la survie ou la croissance à long terme de la société qu’il gère. En lien avec la saine gestion, l’atteinte des objectifs à court terme ne doit pas menacer la viabilité d’une organisation à plus long terme.
Efficience
L’efficience allie efficacité, c’est-à-dire, l’atteinte de résultats et l’optimisation des ressources dans la pose d’actes administratifs. L’administrateur efficient vise le rendement optimal de la société à sa charge et maximise l’utilisation des ressources à sa disposition, dans le respect de l’environnement et de la qualité de vie.
Conscient de l’accès limité aux ressources, l’administrateur met tout en œuvre pour les utiliser avec diligence, parcimonie et doigté dans le but d’atteindre les résultats anticipés. L’absence d’une utilisation judicieuse des ressources constitue une négligence, une faute qui porte préjudice aux commettants.
Équilibre
L’équilibre découle de la juste proportion entre force et idées opposées, d’où résulte l’harmonie contributrice de la saine gestion des sociétés. L’équilibre se traduit chez l’administrateur par l’utilisation dynamique de moyens, de contraintes et de limites imposées par l’environnement en constante évolution.
Pour atteindre l’équilibre, l’administrateur dirigeant doit mettre en place des mécanismes permettant de répartir et balancer l’exercice du pouvoir. Cette pratique ne vise pas la dilution du pouvoir, mais bien une répartition adéquate entre des fonctions nécessitant des compétences et des habiletés différentes.
Équité
L’équité réfère à ce qui est foncièrement juste. Plusieurs applications en lien avec l’équité sont enchâssées dans la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés de la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne et dans la Charte québécoise des droits et libertés de la personne. L’administrateur doit faire en sorte de gérer en respect des lois afin de prévenir l’exercice abusif ou arbitraire du pouvoir.
Abnégation
L’abnégation fait référence à une personne qui renonce à tout avantage ou intérêt personnel autre que ceux qui lui sont accordés par contrat ou établis dans le cadre de ses fonctions d’administrateur.
Voici une étude internationale publiée par Paul Hastings sur la place des femmes dans les conseils d’administration et sur les contenus des codes de gouvernance eu égard à la parité.
Cette étude couvre plusieurs thèmes concernant le raffermissement de la situation des femmes dans les instances de décision, notamment :
(1) éduquer les C.A. sur les impératifs d’affaires reliés à l’importance de la diversité;
(2) présenter des stratégies d’ouverture de postes sur les conseils d’administration;
(3) créer des réseaux et des banques de candidatures féminines.
Les auteurs font le point sur l’évolution de la situation des femmes dans les C.A., pays par pays. Je vous invite à consulter cet ouvrage afin de vous familiariser avec les règlementations internationales en gouvernance. On y présente un excellent résumé des codes de gouvernance :
Europe continues to be a leader on this issue. In the past year, we saw tangible progress as well as continued debate about the best approaches for promoting greater representation of women on corporate boards. 2013 showed the highest year-on-year change recorded to date in the average number of women on boards of large corporations in European Union Member States, in part due to mandatory quotas. However, several EU countries have pursued strategies other than mandatory quotas to address the gap. Austria, Denmark, Finland, the United Kingdom, and Sweden favor legislation and corporate codes that allow companies to set their own targets and policies. Recent amendments to the UK’s corporate governance code more explicitly reference gender as a factor in making board appointments. The changes also require that companies report publically on their board member selection process, diversity, and gender policy as well as measurable objectives for implementing and gauging progress. In Germany, the debate over fixed quotas continues within the government and no legislation addressing gender parity is expected this year.
The United States and Canada continue to exhibit only marginal growth in the percentage of women on boards since the 2012 report. However, in the United States, there has been renewed attention and discourse in the public domain regarding the lack of women in the highest echelons of corporate leadership following several op-eds and most notably, Sheryl Sandberg’s book Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead. Notably, much of the discourse has centered on private sector initiatives, rather than mandatory quotas or other legislative solutions.
In Australia, new legislation has bolstered reporting requirements: private companies with 80 or more employees must report annually regarding specific gender equality indicators. The legislation includes potential sanctions such as naming non-compliant companies in national newspapers and jeopardizing such companies’ eligibility for government contracting. In New Zealand, the proposed NZSX/NZDX Listing Rules regarding diversity have been enacted, requiring listed companies to provide a breakdown of the gender composition of their directors and officers.
L’article de J.T. O’Donnell est très direct et, possiblement, assez juste ! Personne ne me fera dire qu’obtenir un siège sur le C.A. d’une grande entreprise cotée en bourse est une chose facile … même pour une personne expérimentée qui possède déjà un poste de haute direction ! Non, c’est une avenue qui demande beaucoup, beaucoup de temps, de volonté et de stratégies !
Ainsi que l’auteure le mentionne, en plus de l’expérience, la bonne …, il faut beaucoup de chance car vous n’êtes pas le seul, ou la seule, à vouloir accéder aux postes de commandes (sur les C.A.). Vous devez avoir un solide réseau de contacts professionnels et faire connaître votre disponibilité, ce que plusieurs refusent de faire parce qu’ils ou elles ont peur de l’échec.
De plus, vous devez avoir les « bonnes connections », le bon profil LinkedIn, la bonne réputation sur les réseaux sociaux, le bon parcours d’emploi dans les grandes organisations, le bon mentor, le bon timing, la bonne formation académique et, de plus en plus, la bonne formation en gouvernance de sociétés.
Si vous êtes intéressés par un poste sur un C.A. prestigieux (à votre retraite, par exemple) préparez-vous en conséquence en utilisant une démarche structurée et en le laissant savoir dans votre milieu, auprès des firmes de recrutement, sur les réseaux sociaux et auprès d’administrateurs chevronnés. Même si vous êtes le fils ou la fille du propriétaire, ce ne sera pas « une marche dans le parc ».
Je vous invite à lire ce bref article qui vous expliquera quelques barrières à l’entrée… Et n’oubliez pas de lire les commentaires à la fin !
In the last several weeks, I’ve had three separate conversations with smart, proven C-suite members – all men in their late 50s/early 60s. They’re all credentialed and have previous board experience. Each has been aggressively seeking executive board positions over the last 18 months. Not one of them has been successful. Their only solace? Colleagues trying to do the same are failing too.
LinkedIn One Percent Most Viewed Profiles Email (Photo credit: DavidErickson)
As it turns out, more than a few executive Baby Boomers are looking to grab coveted roles on corporate boards. And, why not? Getting paid five-figures to attend quarterly meetings and do some business strategy work seems like a great deal. However, based on my discussions with industry professionals over the last 10 months, for even the most proven executives, it might be easier to win the lottery than to land a board seat. There’s clearly a supply and demand issue – too many senior, white, male executives for too few board positions. Plus, to add insult to injury, according to Jack Welch, some of the executives getting those board seats aren’t very effective.
If you’re an executive who had a board seat(s) in mind for the next phase of your career, here are some things to ponder…
En rappel, vous trouverez, ci-joint, une excellente publication de la NACD (National Association of Corporate Directors) qui présente les grands défis et les enjeux qui attendent les administrateurs de sociétés au cours des prochaines années.
Ce document est un recueil de textes publiés par les partenaires de la NACD : Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc., KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute, Marsh & McLennan Companies, NASDAQ OMX, Pearl Meyer & Partners et Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.
Vous y trouverez un ensemble d’articles très pertinents sur les sujets de l’heure en gouvernance. J’ai déjà publié un billet sur ce sujet le 23 juin 2013, en référence à cette publication.
Chaque année, la NACD se livre à cet exercice et publie un document très prisé !
Voici comment les firmes expertes se sont répartis les thèmes les plus « hot » en gouvernance. Bonne lecture.
Boardroom, Tremont Grand (Photo credit: Joel Abroad)
(1) What to Do When an Activist Investor Comes Calling par Heidrick & Struggle
(2) KPMG’s Audit Committee Priorities for 2013 par KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute
(3) Board Risk Checkup—Are You Ready for the Challenges Ahead ? par Marsh & McLennan Companies
(4) Boardroom Discussions par NASDAQ OMX
(5) Paying Executives for Driving Long-Term Success par Pearl Meyer & Partners
(6) What Boards Should Focus on in 2013 par Weil, Gotshal and Manges, LLP
Today, directors are operating in a new environment. Shareholders, regulators, and stakeholders have greater influence on the boardroom than ever before. In addition, risks and crisis situations are occurring with greater frequency and amplitude. Directors have a responsibility to ensure their companies are prepared for these challenges—present and future.This compendium provides insights and practical guidance from the nation’s leading boardroom experts—the National Association of Corporate Directors’ (NACD’s) strategic content partners—each recognized as a thought leader in their respective fields of corporate governance.
Ce matin, je tente de répondre à de nombreuses interrogations concernant le rôle et les fonctions d’un secrétaire du conseil. En premier lieu, voici une présentation faite par Richard Leblanc auprès des membres de la Canadian Society of Corporate Secretaries (CSCS) – Société canadienne des secrétaires corporatifs (SCSC) lors d’un panel à Toronto.
Je constate que le président du conseil est un acteur clé dans la conduite des activités des secrétaires. Comme le président assume la responsabilité des communications entre le conseil et la direction, son rôle se confond souvent avec celui de secrétaire.
C’est le président qui établit l’ordre du jour avec le PCD et qui, souvent, rédige ou supervise étroitement les procès-verbaux, une tâche normalement accomplie par le secrétaire. Ainsi, dans beaucoup de cas, le secrétaire joue le rôle d’adjoint au président du conseil pour la gestion administrative des affaires du conseil.
Français : Cabinet du Secrétaire Perpétuel de l’Académie nationale de Médecine, Paris, France (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
En cherchant à connaître davantage la description de tâche d’un secrétaire du conseil, j’ai trouvé, parmi les publications de notre partenaire IFA (Institut Français des Administrateurs), un document qui répond très bien à cette préoccupation et qui peut convenir à tous les types d’organisations.
Le document de l’IFA est le fruit d’une enquête menées auprès de 149 secrétaires du conseil; il traite (1) du statut, (2) de la fonction, (3) des moyens et (4) du profil du secrétaire du conseil. Vous pouvez télécharger le document au bas du communiqué de l’IFA.
Les fonctions de Secrétaire du Conseil et des comités du conseil, couvrent par ordre d’importance, les travaux suivants :
rédige les procès-verbaux des réunions du Conseil et s’assure avant leur approbation qu’ils reflètent fidèlement le déroulement des séances ;
est en relation avec les administrateurs en dehors du Conseil, répond à leurs questions, s’assure de leur présence pour le quorum, suit leurs questions matérielles et réglementaires (jetons de présence, suivi des déclarations pour les opérations sur titres etc.) ;
met au point le calendrier des réunions du Conseil, prépare les ordres du jour et convoque les administrateurs ;
prépare l’ordre du jour et organise le déroulement de la séance du Conseil avec le Président ;
prépare ou contribue à l’élaboration des différents documents mis à la disposition des actionnaires en vue de l’Assemblée Générale ;
organise matériellement les réunions, y compris hors du siège social ;
surveille les règles de déontologie et de conformité ;
organise le processus d’évaluation du fonctionnement du Conseil ;
assure le suivi des relations avec les actionnaires individuels, les institutionnels;
est le « Gardien de la gouvernance dans le Groupe » et
assure le secrétariat du Conseil de chaque filiale.
Voici les recommandations qui émanent de cette enquête :
1. La fonction de Secrétaire du Conseil doit être formalisée par le Conseil (plutôt que par des textes réglementaires). Son rôle doit être défini dans le Règlement Intérieur du Conseil et sa nomination entérinée lors d’une séance du Conseil.
2. Lorsque des comités spécialisés existent, il est recommandé que le Secrétaire du Conseil soit aussi le secrétaire de tous les comités. Dans le cas contraire, des comptes rendus des travaux de chaque comité doivent être établis et le Secrétaire du Conseil doit en être destinataire.
3. Dans les entreprises cotées, son poste doit évoluer vers un poste à plein temps et les moyens nécessaires à l’exercice de sa fonction doivent lui être donnés. Budgétairement et en comptabilité analytique, un centre de coût spécifique doit lui être attribué (frais de missions, de formation, jetons de présence …)
4. Le Secrétaire du Conseil doit être disponible et, si possible, rattaché directement au Président du Conseil (exécutif ou non) afin de favoriser une plus grande indépendance et un meilleur fonctionnement du Conseil.
5. Si son poste n’est pas à plein temps, il peut être rattaché à d’autres directions dans le cadre de ses autres fonctions.
6. Il est apparu utile qu’un lieu permanent de rencontre et d’échange (mais aussi d’information et de formation) soit mis à la disposition des Secrétaires du Conseil dans le cadre de l’IFA.
Voici un rapport de recherche publié par la firme Alvarez & Marsal, sur les qualités d’un bon président de conseil d’administration (PCA).
L’étude présente les résultats des entrevues menées auprès de 22 PCA des plus grandes sociétés publiques britanniques qui ont œuvrés avec plus de 120 PCA dans leurs carrières.
Cette lecture, vraiment fascinante, montre clairement les qualités des PCA qui sont considérées comme exceptionnelles par leurs pairs. Ci-dessous, un bref extrait du rapport.
« Our research has identified the key attributes displayed by exceptional chairmen in challenging times. Although most difficult to maintain during periods of duress, these characteristics are displayed throughout a chairman’s tenure and across all aspects of their management of the business. We have also compared these attributes with the guidance for chairmen provided by the Higgs Report and the more recent guidance note published by the Financial Reporting Council. This emphasises that ‘good boards are created by good chairmen’ and the importance of the chairman demonstrating ‘ethical leadership.’ In its detail, the guidance provides lists detailing the chairman’s role, rather than the qualities which come out of our research.
Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, 1987-2006 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Firstly, and most importantly, an exceptional chairman understands the business, its culture, people and processes. This understanding encompasses recognising and embodying the values of the business as much as having knowledge of the business operations and the marketplace. An exceptional chairman also understands the wider industry and prepares the company for all eventualities, from further market disruption to opportunities to improve competitiveness. This is based on their deep knowledge of the company and sector. Extensive knowledge of a sector or type of sector (e.g. heavy manufacturing) is as important as the chairman’s ability to apply his or her accumulated experiences into effecting transformational change and preparing the business for future challenges.
Secondly, exceptional chairmen never consider themselves a one-person success. They create strong teams that have real influence on the company’s direction by building an effective board of non-execs and establishing a complementary working relationship with the CEO and their team. They implement change through the CEO, but are ready and able to step in at the right time to provide air cover to alleviate pressure. In short, they provide strong active leadership of the board.
Not afraid to take tough decisions in adversity, this type of chairman has an infectious enthusiasm and commitment to change which has a ripple effect, creating a ‘can-do’ attitude throughout the company. With internal stakeholders on board, the chairman uses strong communication skills to engage shareholders and other external stakeholders with change ».
L’article présente 8 aspects qui caractérisent les présidents de conseil qui ont du succès. Lisez la suite dans cet excellent rapport.
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 