Solide prise de position sur le comportement des fonds activistes (« hedge funds ») rédigée par Martin Lipton, partenaire fondateur de la firme Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, et publiée dans Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. L’auteur montre comment les fonds activistes peuvent souvent agir en fonction d’intérêts contraires aux actionnaires.
L’auteur soulève une multitude de questions qui doivent trouver des réponses adéquates. Je vous invite à lire ce court article afin de vous sensibiliser à l’ampleur du travail à faire dans le domaine de la gouvernance.
« In what can only be considered a form of extortion, activist hedge funds are preying on American corporations to create short-term increases in the market price of their stock at the expense of long-term value…. It requires new thinking to address the new threat. Among the questions that must be addressed are :
1. Purpose of the American Business Corporation. Is the fundamental purpose of the American business corporation, and the proper goal of sound corporate governance, optimal long-term value creation? Or is the purpose to maximize short-term stockholder value at any time any particular stockholder—with its own goals and agenda, which are unlikely to be congruent with the interests of other stockholders—happens to demand it?
Hedge Fund Managers – Lynching Party Needed (Photo credit: smallislander)
2. How Are “Excess” Returns Actually Obtained? Activist hedge funds are reportedly outperforming many other asset classes as their raids seem to “unlock” value through pressured transactions. Is this value actually created, or merely appropriated from fellow stockholders with longer-term investment horizons, and from other stakeholders such as employees, including by sacrificing capital spending and investment in long-term research and development?
3. Are There Really Best Practices? Is there sufficient (or any genuine) evidence that “best practices” corporate governance of the type promoted by the academics and advisory services results in enhanced long-term performance of the corporation — especially given the fact that American corporations have historically enjoyed the best long-run performance in the world? Is “best practices” corporate governance a major factor in short-termism?
4. Structural Conflict. Is there a structural conflict in a system in which stockholders exercising power over a corporation owe no legal duty to anyone and are an ever-changing group that is free to enter a stock in size without advance disclosure and exit at any time of their choosing, act in concert, or even mask their interests using derivatives and engage in empty voting? And in which the decision-makers at these stockholder bodies are themselves agents, compensated, in many cases, on the basis of the short-term performance of the investment portfolios they supervise on behalf of savers and investors?
5. The “Principal/Agent” Premise. Is the essential premise of the stockholder-centric proponents – the principal-owner/agent view of the corporate firm – accurate or reasonable, given that the legal system gives legal immunity to the “owners” (stockholders) and imposes fiduciary duties and liabilities on the “agents” (directors)?
6. The Missing Principal. Is the principal/agent structure of institutional investors imposing an unacceptable cost on corporations when the underlying beneficial holders of the managed portfolios– retirees, long-term investors and savers – play little if any role in checking the power of those running the investment intermediaries? Regulation, litigation, and public scrutiny perform powerful roles in addressing agency costs that may exist at the corporate board and management level. But given the massive intermediated ownership of public corporations today by a variety of different types of institutional investors with varied compensation and governance arrangements of their own, do we fully understand the agency costs of these investment intermediaries, who is bearing those costs and whether they are being sufficiently monitored and mitigated? And why has the academy not fixed its gaze on these powerful actors, including advisors such as ISS and Glass Lewis?
7. Trust the Directors. Is the assumption by academics that directors on corporate boards cannot be trusted based on any actual evidence, on observed anecdotal information, or just the skepticism of a group that has never (or rarely) been in the boardroom or been charged with overseeing a for-profit enterprise? And does the constant assumption and allegation of untrustworthiness in fact create both a disincentive to serve and a disinclination to act, all to the detriment of the corporate enterprise and its beneficiaries?
8. Directors’ and CEOs’ Time. Is it desirable that directors and CEOs spend a third of their time on governance? Has the governance-rather-than-performance-centric debate resulted in a new breed of lawyer-type-CEOs and box-checking “monitoring” boards rather than sophisticated and experienced “advising” boards?
9. Escaping Governance. What part of the private equity activity wave is fairly attributable to increased costs imposed by corporate governance in the public markets that makes management for long-term value appreciation difficult or impossible in those public markets? Is that good or bad?
10. Why Do Venture Capitalists and Entrepreneurs NOT Choose the Academics’ Governance Model? Why do highly successful technology corporations go public with capital structures that preserve management control? To avoid the pressure for short-term performance? To avoid shareholder pressure on management? Do these companies underperform or are they our most innovative companies?
11. Economic and Business Theory. Is there any evidence that the ideas and suggestions of short-term money managers, who oversee diverse portfolios, promote long-term (or even medium-term) value creation? What happens to investment, strategic thinking and risk management in a world in which the ideas have time horizons measured in months or quarters? How do the advocates of stockholder-centric governance take account of the fact that stockholders do not have information and expertise about the corporation on a par with its directors and officers? Similarly are long-term stockholder interests and wealth creation served by intermediaries in the proxy advisory services, operating without regulation or fiduciary duty, either to the corporation or its stockholders or to investors and beneficiaries? And what to make of the elephant-in-the-room fact that activist hedge funds don’t have to eat what they cook?
12. Political Theory. At bottom, doesn’t the stockholder-centric theory hark back to the crudest 19th century aspects of laissez-faire capitalism—pressing for the legal system to recognize a single social good (maximizing rentiers’ portfolio returns) while ignoring or slighting the interests of employees, communities and societal welfare? Is stockholder-centric governance as currently promoted and practiced by the academic and governance communities, and the short-termism it imposes, responsible for a very significant part of American unemployment and a failure to achieve a GDP growth rate sufficient to pay for reasonable entitlements without a significant increase in taxes ? »
Aujourd’hui, je vous propose la lecture d’un excellent article paru dans DealBook | New York Times qui traite de la nouvelle réalité qui s’impose de plus en plus aux conseils d’administration des grandes entreprises publiques. Comment les C.A., à l’ère de l’activisme de groupes d’actionnaires organisés, peuvent-ils s’assurer de prendre en compte les intérêts à long terme de l’entreprise lorsque de formidables pressions s’exercent sur eux pour infléchir leurs décisions financières en faveur de gains à court terme ?
« The great challenge for today’s boards in this new era of activism is catering to all the diverse “shareholders,” which includes those with a longer investment horizon like pension funds and mutual funds, as well as those who are seeking quick profits. The board should represent all shareholders, not any one region or philosophy ».
L’article d’Ira M. Millstein* ne donne certainement pas toutes les réponses mais il invite les conseils d’administration à revoir leurs priorités stratégiques. L’Université Columbia a entrepris une vaste étude sur les motivations qui poussent les entreprises à gérer à court terme. Ainsi donc de nombreuses recherches en cours devraient apporter un éclairage nouveau sur ce phénomène. Et vous, quel est votre point de vue ?
« Columbia, along with studies at other institutions, is trying to learn what motivates short-term investing, why the longer-term shareholders are so often silent and why the investment chain either through apathy or the wrong incentives, has created the world of short-term investing in which we live. This undertaking will also examine the role of so-called proxy advisory firms and rating agencies in board policies. In the end, we will all gain a better understanding of shareholder influence, and what incentives can turn this economy away from short-term investing and back to long-term sustainable growth. Corporations will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this knowledge, which will provide the understanding that will facilitate legitimate long-term planning ».
« With the recent increase in activism, some on Wall Street are blaming shareholders for the short-term mentality of corporate boards. But many of these activists represent a small subset of investors in publicly held companies. As a result, corporate boards around the country should re-examine their priorities and figure out to whom they owe their fiduciary duties. One of the major problems of this newfound activism is the focus on short-term results. That is not to say that our economy isn’t gripped by a short-term mentality, whether it’s individuals saving less and seeking immediate satisfaction or corporations forgoing long-term sustainable growth and profitability to meet investor demands for quarterly stock market returns.
GE Shareholder Meeting protest (Photo credit: Fuzzytek)
But as many commentators have pointed out, activist investors are manipulating the system without succeeding in increasing shareholder value or instilling better corporate governance practices. Some activists are using their newfound power to sway and bully management to focus on the short term, meet the quarterly targets and disgorge cash in extra dividends or stock buy backs in lieu of investing in long-term growth. In recent years, companies including Dell, Yahoo and others have faced proxy wars or shareholder proposals to merge, divest, change boards or management or undergo a drastic reorganization…
… Academics and practitioners should be studying these questions intensely. This involves canvassing and analyzing the entire investment chain that boards face, including pension funds, mutual funds and hedge funds of hundreds of varieties and ordinary investors and advisers, which one project at Columbia Law School aims to do ».
_____________________________________
Ira M. Millstein est co-présidente du Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership de Columbia Law School et associée sénior de la firme Weil, Gotshal & Manges.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un excellent article publié par Jennifer Brown et paru dans Canadian Lawer Magazine. Voilà un texte qui présente une vue assez équilibrée sur la nécessité ou non d’une réglementation accrue en général, mais dans ce cas-ci, concernant l’industrie des firmes de conseils en procurations (« proxy advisory industry »). Cet article discute de la grande diversité des arguments présentés à la Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA). Il y a du pour et du contre ! Et vous, quel est votre point de vue dans ce débat ?
When the Canadian Securities Administrators issued a call last summer for comment on the potential regulation of the proxy advisory industry, it was inundated with responses from general counsel, their companies, law firms, and others who seemed to have been waiting in the shadows for a chance to vent. The input received from reporting issuers, directors, and the investor relations people that work for Canadian companies shows the idea obviously hit a nerve with many Canadian public companies of all sizes, says Tuzyk. “Given the volume of comments advocating some form of action from all these issuers in response to the comment period — there are very few issues of new proposed rules that so many issuers have commented on like this — I would be very surprised if they did nothing.”…
English: proxy networks logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The question of whether the proxy advisory industry should be regulated has been a polarizing issue for some time now. Depending on who you ask, there are strong opinions on both sides. Institutional shareholders are closely aligned with the proxy firms; law firms make their bread and butter from corporate management, while issuers and academics have concerns about many aspects of the process. The CSA, which acts on behalf of the provincial securities regulators in Canada, invited input from all parties — issuers, institutional investors, proxy advisers, and other market players — on concerns over the activities of proxy advisory firms. The concerns range from a perceived lack of transparency in how they operate to conflicts of interest and inaccuracy of their work.
The activities of proxy advisory firms are unregulated in Canada. The call for consultation follows similar steps by regulators in the United States and Europe, as the perceived power of proxy firms, such as Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. and Glass, Lewis & Co., which provide proxy voting advice and other services, has been debated in recent years. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission embarked upon a similar exercise in 2010, but it has not resulted in any changes to date.
Some feel companies like ISS and Glass Lewis wield too much power and have too much influence. Insiders point to issuers who have been quoted in the press making comments along the lines of, “The proxy advisory firm is my number one shareholder because they control 50 per cent of my vote.”
That sounds good as a headline but it’s not really true, says Brad Allen, of Branav Shareholder Advisory Services Inc. “People continue to reinforce this image that proxy firms have all this power. They do have influence but their primary influence is their ability to communicate to a broad range of shareholders that hold an equity interest.”
As one of many companies that submitted a written response to regulators last fall, Magna International Inc. indicated its key concerns included potential conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, and potential inaccuracies as well as limited opportunity for issuer engagement. It also has concerns about the extent to which institutional investors in Canada rely on proxy advisers’ recommendations. “Our comments were directed to say, there has to be a level playing field so the issuers know exactly what is the basis on which we are being assessed,” says Bassem Shakeel, Magna’s vice president and secretary. “Right now that is one of the biggest problems; there just isn’t enough transparency around the detail — the basis on which some parts of the analysis is being completed and/or overly broad subjective discretion which can be used to override voting guidelines.”
Others argue the proxy companies aren’t as powerful as the issuers make them out to be. “My view is these proxy advisory firms don’t necessarily have as much influence as many people say they do because a lot of times when we speak to institutional investors, who are clients, they are proud to say, ‘Yes we receive the information but we’re not robots and we do spend some time on how we’re going to vote,’” says Jonathan Feldman, a partner at Goodmans LLP. “They say, ‘If we disagree with what the proxy advisers are suggesting, we won’t just follow them blindly.’”
The issues of conflict of interest, transparency, and lack of qualitative assessment of governance quality and predictive validity on shareholder value are all reasons why the proxy firms should be regulated, says Richard Leblanc, an associate professor of law, governance, and ethics at York University. “If I asked my students to pay me to help them with their score, it’s a conflict,” he says.
He says ISS and Glass Lewis use a “mechanistic, quantitative, and volume-based” approach to their business and don’t measure things that are important to the quality of corporate governance and to shareholder performance — essentially what happens inside the boardroom. “The assumption is what they are measuring matters but often what they’re not measuring might matter more,” such as individual people and the qualities and skills of directors, says Leblanc. “As a qualitative researcher I’m seeing this volume-based model that is conflicted because of the consulting stream to improve your governance score. Their input variables are basically a proxy circular. That does not capture corporate governance.”
L’Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec (AMF) a récemment publié un document de consultation qui propose d’apporter des modifications significatives au régime des OPA présentement en vigueur. Vous trouverez dans ce bref extrait du projet de consultation (1) les raisons qui motivent l’AMF à intervenir, (2) les deux changements proposés et (3) les résultats anticipés.
Je vous invite à lire le document au complet pour de plus amples informations; on y traite plus en détail des points suivants : Le régime canadien des OPA, l’Avis 62-202 et son interprétation, les détails de l’affaire Fibrek, le rôle des administrateurs, la déférence à l’égard des décisions du conseil d’administration des sociétés visées, les normes de gouvernance et intervention des porteurs de titres, l’évolution de la gouvernance et des recours, l’activisme actionnarial, le pouvoir d’influence notable des fonds spéculatifs et des autres arbitragistes sur la vente des sociétés visées.
« La proposition de l’Autorité vise principalement à rétablir l’équilibre réglementaire entre les initiateurs d’offres publiques d’achat (OPA) et le conseil d’administration des sociétés visées et à actualiser l’encadrement réglementaire des OPA pour tenir compte du contexte juridique et économique ainsi que des pratiques du marché qui les entourent actuellement. Nous proposons donc de réexaminer l’approche actuellement adoptée à l’égard des mesures de défense dans l’Avis 62-202 et d’apporter deux changements importants à notre régime des OPA.
Le château Frontenac –Vieux-Québec / Old Quebec, ville de Québec / Quebec city(Québec, Canada) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Le présent document de consultation vise à permettre un échange de points de vue sur la problématique soulevée par la réglementation des mesures de défense au Canada, y compris le rôle des conseils d’administration réagissant aux OPA non sollicitées, et à recueillir des commentaires sur la proposition de l’Autorité.
Nous proposons de remplacer l’Avis 62-202 par une nouvelle instruction générale sur les mesures de défense qui reconnaîtrait explicitement l’obligation fiduciaire dont les administrateurs doivent s’acquitter envers leur société lorsqu’ils réagissent à une OPA non sollicitée et redéfinirait l’intervention des autorités au motif de l’intérêt public.
Nous estimons qu’il faut manifester envers les administrateurs des sociétés visées la déférence appropriée dans l’exécution de leur obligation fiduciaire. Nous partons du principe que les risques éventuels de conflits d’intérêts et d’enracinement des administrateurs sont circonscrits et gérés de façon adéquate, et que ces derniers font preuve de la compétence et des aptitudes nécessaires lorsqu’ils s’acquittent de leur obligation de diligence, notamment en tenant des délibérations rigoureuses et informées.
Nous proposons également de modifier notre régime des OPA pour exiger, comme condition irrévocable de toute offre visant l’ensemble des titres d’une catégorie et de toute offre partielle, que plus de 50 % des titres en circulation de la catégorie visée détenus par d’autres personnes que l’initiateur et ses alliés soient déposés et que le dépôt de ces titres ne soit pas révoqué à la date d’expiration de l’offre. Nous proposons aussi d’exiger que l’offre soit prolongée de 10 jours à la suite de l’annonce du dépôt de ce pourcentage de titres.
Selon nous, la mise en oeuvre de la proposition de l’Autorité aurait les effets suivants :
– elle permettrait aux administrateurs de disposer d’une plus grande latitude dans l’exécution de leur obligation fiduciaire et examiner toutes les options en vue de maximiser la valeur pour les porteurs sans que les autorités interviennent;
– elle créerait un cadre révisé de réglementation de l’ensemble des mesures de défense, et non seulement les régimes de droits;
– elle atténuerait l’effet coercitif de notre régime des OPA pour toutes les offres et non seulement pour celles qui sont visées par des régimes de droits;
– elle apporterait une solution réglementaire directe à certaines des lacunes de notre régime des OPA;
– elle pourrait limiter le pouvoir d’influence des arbitragistes sur la vente des sociétés visées;
– elle pourrait encourager les initiateurs à négocier avec les conseils d’administration, ce qui pourrait maximiser la valeur pour les porteurs ».
Voici un article scientifique publié dans Social Science Research Network (SSRN)par Bill Francis (1), Iftekhar Hasan (2) et Qiang Wu (3) sur un sujet très pertinent pour la gouvernance des sociétés : L’utilité de la présence de professeurs d’université sur les C.A. des entreprises publiques.
L’article montre que la présence de professeurs sur les conseils d’administration est positivement associée à une meilleure performance des entreprises. Les professeurs-administrateurs, plus particulièrement ceux qui ont une formation en administration, jouent un rôle très important de conseillers auprès de l’entreprise. Leur influence sur la performance des entreprises semble déterminante dans plusieurs domaines relatifs à la bonne gouvernance.
« Directors from academia served on the boards of more than one third of S&P 1,500 firms over the 1998-2006 period. This paper investigates the effects of academic directors on corporate governance and firm performance. We find that companies with directors from academia are associated with higher performance. In addition, we find that professors without administrative jobs drive the positive relation between academic directors and firm performance. We also show that professors’ educational backgrounds affect the identified relationship. For example, academic directors with business-related degrees have the most positive impacts on firm performance among all the academic fields considered in our regressions.
Furthermore, we show that academic directors play an important governance role through their monitoring and advising functions. Specifically, we find that the presence of academic directors is associated with higher acquisition performance, higher number of patents, higher stock price informativeness, lower discretionary accruals, lower CEO compensation, and higher CEO turnover-performance sensitivity. Overall, our results provide supportive evidence that academic directors are effective monitors and valuable advisors, and that firms benefit from academic directors ».
Si vous souhaitez avoir plus d’information sur les objectifs, la méthodologie ou les résultats de l’étude, je vous invite à lire l’article au complet.
Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
« This paper empirically investigates whether the presence of academic directors affects firm performance and corporate governance. Based on the independence theory, expertise theory, and diversity theory, we hypothesize that academic directors can improve board efficacy and subsequent firm performance because of their monitoring abilities and advising abilities. The key result is in line with our hypothesis. We find that the presence of directors from academia in the boardroom is associated with higher firm performance. The positive association holds after controlling for firm- and other governance-specific characteristics, and considering endogeneity issues, such as omitted variable bias, self-selection bias and causality issue. By comparing the differences in the attendance behavior and committee assignments of academic directors and other outside directors, we find that academic directors perform better than other outside directors in the boardroom.
We further examine the monitoring and advising roles of academic directors in details. We find that firms with academic directors have higher CEO turnover-performance sensitivity, lower cash-based CEO compensation, more patent numbers, higher acquisition performance, higher stock price informativeness, and are less likely to manage their earnings. The results provide several channels through which academic directors affect firm value positively.
We also find evidence that academic directors with administrative jobs do not improve firm performance as much as academic directors without administrative jobs. Additional analysis finds that academic directors with administrative jobs have more severe board-meeting attendance problems. Furthermore, we find that academic directors’ areas of study have different impacts on firm performance ».
_______________________________________
(1) Lally School of Management and Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un document de l’Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (ICSA) qui se veut un guide de bonnes pratiques en vue de faciliter les communications entre l’entreprise et ses investisseurs institutionnels. Le guide est particulièrement intéressant en ce sens qu’il met l’accent sur des moyens concrets d’accroître la qualité des rencontres entre les deux parties. Voici le sommaire exécutif du guide :
This guidance, developed jointly by companies and institutional investors, is intended to facilitate good engagement practices. This is important in supporting long-term investment, based on increased levels of trust between a company and its owners.
The guidance has been designed to provide practical advice on: (1) making meetings between companies and institutional investors more productive – helping make the best use of all participants’ time, and creating the optimum conditions for dialogue (2) creating a more meaningful dialogue between companies and institutional investors – outside of the traditional results season – on strategy and long-term performance (3) improving the feedback process – in both directions – between companies and institutional investors on the quality of meetings (4) using the learning developed as a result to improve engagement practices.
The guidance emphasises four key messages: (A) The need to develop an engagement strategy (B) The importance of getting housekeeping issues right (C) Strengthening the conversation on strategy and long-term performance (D) Providing feedback in a way that adds value for all participants.
A key principle of the guidance is that that there should be a regular and consistent process of engagement, over time, between a company and its key investors, in order to establish, develop and maintain relationships. For these reasons, both companies and institutional investors need to have a clear understanding of each other’s expectations in terms of the nature and frequency of engagement; avoid an automatic presumption that there is ‘no need’ to pursue engagement; and should review this understanding periodically to ensure its continuing relevance.
The guidance suggests there may be benefits for a company in developing a critical mass of shareholders who can provide constructive engagement, and outlines some considerations for the use of collective meetings.
The one particular area of engagement which the guidance recommends strengthening concerns the conversation on strategy and long-term sustainable performance. Once a year, a company and its owners should focus on the company’s approach to creating value, and protecting that value, looking at issues such as strategy, performance, succession, board effectiveness, culture, risk and reputation. Individual issues, such as remuneration, should be placed in that context, rather than dominating the wider strategy discussion.
Feedback – in both directions – between companies and institutional investors, is an important means of assessing the degree to which each other’s expectations have been met in terms of the quality and quantity of engagement activity. Honest, nuanced, constructive and, as necessary, challenging feedback is best for all parties.
Vous trouverez ci-dessous un communiqué du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) qui présente trois formations en gouvernance pour trois secteurs spécialisés lesquelles seront offertes en mai prochain.
Le CAS dispense une certification universitaire en gouvernance de sociétés depuis plus de sept ans; cependant plusieurs diplômés ainsi que plusieurs administrateurs et hauts dirigeants souhaitent se spécialiser en approfondissant la gouvernance dans les domaines suivants : (1) Gouvernance des services financiers, (2) Gouvernance des PMEet (3) Gouvernance des régimes de retraite.
Sur une formule de deux jours intensifs, ces formations en gouvernance sont adaptées aux besoins des administrateurs et hauts gestionnaires de ces trois secteurs spécialisés.
Gouvernance des services financiers
La formation Gouvernance des services financiers aura lieu les 7 et 8 mai 2013, à Montréal. Elle est destinée aux administrateurs, hauts dirigeants et cadres du secteur des services financiers qui oeuvrent dans le domaine bancaire, les assurances, les valeurs mobilières et les organismes d’encadrement légal et corporatif. Cette formation vise à favoriser la mise en place de saines pratiques de gouvernance afin d’assurer l’efficacité, la transparence, l’intégrité, la stabilité et la crédibilité du secteur des services financiers et de préserver ainsi la confiance du grand public, des consommateurs et des investisseurs.
The Price Building, in the old city of Quebec City. The building is the head office of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and the official residence of the Premier of Québec (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Gouvernance des PME
La formation Gouvernance des PME aura lieu les 8 et 9 mai 2013, à Québec. Les chefs d’entreprise, hauts dirigeants, investisseurs et administrateurs appelés à siéger sur les conseils d’administration ou comités consultatifs de PME sont invités à participer à cette formation haut de gamme visant à réfléchir aux pratiques de gouvernance les mieux adaptées et les plus efficaces pour ce type d’entreprise. En compagnie de formateurs de renom et de gens témoignant de leurs expériences, il s’agit d’un moment privilégié pour revoir ses grandes orientations et identifier des moyens concrets pour optimiser sa gouvernance d’entreprise, dans une ambiance conviviale.
La formation Gouvernance des régimes de retraite aura lieu les 15 et 16 mai 2013, à Montréal. Elle s’adresse aux administrateurs, mandataires et gestionnaires de régimes de retraite à cotisation ou prestations déterminées. Cette formation vise à améliorer les connaissances et compétences en gouvernance, à préciser les rôles et responsabilités qui incombent aux administrateurs et gestionnaires d’un régime de retraite, puis à développer un sens critique pour un meilleur processus décisionnel.
Sept ordres et organismes professionnels reconnaissent la valeur de ces formations du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés dans le cadre de la formation continue de leurs membres pour une valeur de 15 heures. En savoir plus.
_________________________________________
À propos du CAS
Créé en 2005 par l’Autorité des marchés financiers, la Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, la Faculté des sciences de l’administration de l’Université Laval et le ministère du Conseil exécutif du Québec, le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés offre le seul programme de certification universitaire en gouvernance de sociétés au Québec. Il contribue au développement et à la promotion de la bonne gouvernance et offre aux administrateurs de sociétés une formation de la plus haute qualité, un environnement dynamique de partage du savoir et une source d’informations privilégiée à la fine pointe des meilleures pratiques. À ce jour, le CAS a diplômé 542 ASC. Pour information : www.cas.ulaval.ca.
Stephen Miles, fondateur et PCD de The Miles Group, une entreprise qui se spécialise dans le conseil en gestion des talents, met l’accent sur un véritable problème de plusieurs C.A. : leurs relatives faiblesses en gouvernance ! Après avoir fait ressortir les exigences accrues des investisseurs institutionnels pour une plus grande performance des membres de C.A., l’auteur présente cinq lacunes majeures de plusieurs conseils d’administration : (1) connaissances déficientes, (2) manque d’auto-évaluation, (3) sentiment de supériorité, (4) manque d’expérience de plusieurs membres dans certains comités et processus de recrutement déficient, (5) problème de leadership.
À mon avis, les membres de conseils d’administration devraient examiner leur efficacité à la lumière des constats évoqués par l’auteur. On voit que la composition d’un C.A. performant repose beaucoup sur le recrutement des membres, sur le leadership du président du conseil et sur le renforcement du comité de gouvernance, parent pauvre des comités statutaires selon Stephen Miles.
L’article est-il biaisé en faveur de la gestion des talents ? Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus. Bonne lecture.
No board member sets out to be mediocre. And yet as institutional shareholders and activists are “grading” board performance on a steeper curve than ever before, their view is that many boards are coming up short.
RDECOM Board of Directors holds meeting (Photo credit: RDECOM)
ISS, government regulators, the press, and others are exercising much greater scrutiny over whether boards are executing their fiduciary responsibilities and really acting in the best interests of shareholders. While activist shareholders traditionally were able to hold sway and demand board seats in smaller companies outside the Fortune 500, today we are seeing this happen with venerable names such as Procter & Gamble, Yahoo!, BMC Software, and JC Penney.
In this climate of stakeholders’ taking a much tougher stance on what they deem to be “underperforming directors,” it’s worth it to examine the causes of mediocre performance on boards today. Why are many boards missing the mark?
Voici un excellent article, paru dans The Economist, qui présente un plaidoyer convaincant en faveur de l’adoption d’une perspective à long terme dans la conduite des entreprises. L’auteur montre que la théorie de la maximisation du rendement des actionnaires (souvent à court terme) passe par l’implantation de stratégies alignées sur l’accroissement de la valeur des sociétés à long terme. Il donne plusieurs exemples d’entreprises qui ont optées, avec succès, pour une vision et un management à long terme, seule approche susceptible d’assurer la pérennité des entreprises. Le conseil d’administration qui doit avoir une orientation claire à cet égard.
Je vous invite donc à prendre connaissance de ce court extrait et à lire l’article au complet si cette perspective vous allume. Qu’en pensez-vous ?
Peut-on, comme Peter Drucker, concevoir une théorie du management qui prône une vue à long terme, tout en assurant la satisfaction des actionnaires … et des autres parties prenantes ?
« HE IS the chief executive of a multinational corporation, but Paul Polman sometimes sounds more like a spokesman for Occupy Wall Street. The boss of Unilever (an Anglo-Dutch consumer-goods firm with brands ranging from Timotei shampoo to Ben & Jerry’s ice cream) agonises about unemployment, global warming and baby-boomer greed. He puts some of the blame for these ills on the most influential management theory of the past three decades: the idea that companies should aim above all else to maximise returns to shareholders.
Paul Polman – World Economic Forum on East Asia 2011 (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)
He appears to mean it. Since taking charge in 2009, Mr Polman has stopped Unilever from publishing full financial results every quarter. He refuses to offer earnings guidance to equity analysts. He has introduced a lengthy “sustainable living plan” and attracted a new cadre of long-term investors, particularly in emerging markets. He even told an audience in Davos that hedge-fund managers would sell their own grandmothers to make a profit.
Mr Polman was one of several titans to decry the cult of shareholder value at the Peter Drucker Forum (an annual gathering of admirers of the late Austrian-born management guru) in Vienna on November 15th and 16th. Roger Martin, the dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, called it a “crummy principle that is undermining American capitalism”. Georg Kapsch of the Federation of Austrian Industries urged the world to abandon it. Rick Wartzman, the director of the Drucker Institute, said its critics were gaining momentum.
The cult has certainly yielded perverse results. The fashion for linking pay to share prices has spurred some bosses to manipulate those prices. For example, a manager with share options gets nothing if the share price misses its target, so he may take unwise risks to hit it. Short-termism is rife on Wall Street: the average time that people hold a stock on the New York Stock Exchange has tumbled from eight years in 1960 to four months in 2010. The emphasis on short-term results has tempted some firms to skimp on research and innovation, robbing the future to flatter this year’s profits. “Long-term results cannot be achieved by piling short-term results on short-term results,” Drucker once remarked ».
Découvrez le numéro 48 de la lettre de liaison mensuelle adressée aux adhérents de l’IFA. Cette publication électronique mensuelle au format pdf téléchargeable via le site internet a pour objectif de faciliter l’accès aux informations-clés sur les activités de l’IFA pour tous les adhérents : l’agenda des prochains évènements et séminaires, les activités en région, les actualités de la gouvernance, les dernières publications et les principaux services disponibles.
Dans ce numéro, Laurence Dors (Anthenor Partners) et Caroline de La Marnierre (Capitalcom), co-signataires de cet éditorial, tentent de répondre à une question posée par le MONDE ECONOMIE du 18 février 2013 : Comment contrôler les salaires des dirigeants ?
J’ai reproduit ci-dessous le texte paru dans la section « actualités de la gouvernance » de la lettre de l’IFA. Bonne lecture.
Le sujet du moment : Les patrons coûtent-ils trop cher ?
« Voici une question que se pose un grand nombre de nos concitoyens dans un contexte économique et social particulièrement tourmenté, mais la vraie question n’est–elle pas ailleurs : existe-t-il des critères objectifs, équitables et lisibles – à la fois pour l’entreprise et ses parties prenantes : actionnaires, salariés, partenaires et clients– susceptibles d’asseoir la rémunération d’un dirigeant de manière juste, efficace et consensuelle?
C’est tout l’enjeu du vote – consultatif ou non – de la rémunération globale des dirigeants par les actionnaires de l’entreprise en Assemblée Générale débattu sous l’appellation anglo-saxonne de Say on Pay. Alors que ce projet de loi fait couler beaucoup d’encre en France, le Say on Pay est déjà en vigueur dans 17 pays au plan mondial.
L’agitation autour des rémunérations de certains patrons du CAC 40 dans un contexte où la crise fait reculer les résultats, stagner les salaires et progresser le chômage, a naturellement joué un rôle essentiel dans l’instauration d’une dynamique en faveur du Say on Pay. Mais elle a également faussé le débat, car le Say on Pay ne saurait être un outil de modération des rémunérations des dirigeants, comme en témoignent les tendances inverses observées concrètement dans les pays où il est en vigueur.
Les détracteurs du Say on Pay objectent que ce vote reviendrait à dessaisir le Conseil d’Administration d’une large partie de ses responsabilités et prérogatives. Mais cet argument ne tient pas puisque le Conseil d’Administration aura toujours pour mission de délibérer sur les niveaux, les modalités et les critères de performance des dirigeants.
En revanche, la perspective d’un tel vote va nécessairement changer la dynamique de décision au sein du Conseil d’Administration : là où les questions de rémunération faisaient souvent l’objet de débats feutrés réservés – dans la pratique – à un cercle restreint autour du Président et du Comité des Rémunérations, le Say on Pay va obliger la collégialité du Conseil à en assumer pleinement les enjeux.
En outre, et peut-être est-ce là une opportunité que nous apporte cette disposition, le Say on Pay se révélera probablement un puissant levier d’alignement de la rémunération des dirigeants avec les intérêts de l’entreprise et de ses parties prenantes, et donc avec le projet de l’entreprise sur le moyen/long terme. En obligeant le Conseil d’Administration à investir du temps et de l’énergie sur la détermination de niveaux de rémunération lisibles, équitables et objectifs, le Say on Pay va inéluctablement favoriser une prise en compte accrue du temps long, dont le Conseil d’Administration est garant. La performance ne s’établissant de manière incontestable que dans la durée, l’étalement dans le temps du versement de certaines composantes de la rémunération va s’en trouver renforcé. Pour frustrantes qu’elles soient pour les intéressés qui porteront un risque accru, les tendances préexistantes au paiement partiel en actions – ou équivalent actions – vont apparaitre d’autant plus séduisantes aux Conseils d’Administration qu’elles diminuent le numéraire versé l’année « N », et donc l’irritabilité des actionnaires et des parties prenantes en période de crise.
Pour être alignée avec le projet d’entreprise, la rémunération des dirigeants devra également être acceptable au plan social, ce qui impliquera que les Comités de rémunérations s’extraient du champ du financier quasi confidentiel pour aborder ce sujet – particulièrement complexe – de façon élargie, c’est-à-dire en y intégrant plus largement la dimension sociale/environnementale de l’entreprise. Concrètement, cela veut dire que l’évaluation des dirigeants prendrait davantage en considération des paramètres comme l’évolution annuelle de la masse salariale du Groupe, les écarts de salaire, les flux nets d’emploi, les plans de restructuration éventuels, en plus des habituels critères sociaux, et également : l’évolution des émissions de gaz à effet de serre, de l’efficacité énergétique, de la consommation d’eau et de la préservation des ressources, etc…
Le débat au sein du Conseil d’Administration sur la rémunération des dirigeants va ainsi conduire à plus de co-construction du projet d’entreprise, à plus d’exigence dans le suivi et la prévention des risques, et à un champ de débats plus large autour de l’intérêt social de l’entreprise, qui s’inscrit dans le temps.
Loin d’une prise de gage sur les patrons, et beaucoup plus qu’un simple ajustement technique, le Say on Pay est donc surtout un levier de rénovation de la gouvernance de l’entreprise, susceptible de changer l’ambiance des Conseils d’Administration et de dynamiser l’interaction entre la Direction Générale et l’organe de contrôle.
Pour autant, le Say on Pay va-t-il clore la polémique sur les rémunérations excessives ? On peut en douter, mais il peut apporter de l’objectivation sereine. Le rodage ira-t-il sans heurt ? Là aussi, ce sera un art d’exécution avec d’inévitables tentations démagogiques ici et là. Que l’on procède par voie de code de place ou par voie législative, il faudra un temps d’adaptation, et c’est pour cela que dans sa grande sagesse, le législateur et le gouvernement semblent avoir abandonné la piste d’une mise en oeuvre obligatoire dès les Assemblées Générales 2013. Comme toute réforme de fond, celle-là doit s’élaborer dans le consensus, sans préjugé et sans fantasme.
Il est fondamental que le Say on Pay soit perçu par les dirigeants et les membres du Conseil comme une opportunité de progrès, tant en interne à travers un dialogue social enrichi, que dans la relation globale de l’entreprise avec son environnement et l’opinion publique. Rechercher les critères d’une rémunération « juste » revient clairement à centrer le débat non plus exclusivement sur la personne du dirigeant, mais sur les intérêts de l’entreprise et de ses parties prenantes ».
Ce billet, paru dans le HLS Forum, présente le sommaire exécutif d’un rapport produit par la firme Equilar sur les perspectives relatives à la gouvernance et à la rémunération en 2013. La firme Equilar est l’une des plus importantes entreprises de recherche et de publication dans le domaine de la gouvernance. Le rapport complet que vous pourriez vous procurer en vous adressant directement à l’entreprise Equilar se décline en trois catégories : (1) Conseil d’administration, (2) Rémunération de la direction et (3) Divulgation et gouvernance.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous les principaux résultats de cette enquête (Key Findings). Bonne lecture.
« Each year, Equilar looks to highlight critical areas that can potentially affect those dealing with compensation and governance issues in the upcoming year. The 2013 Compensation & Governance Outlook Report aims to cover a variety of emerging trends in the fields of executive and director pay, equity trends, and corporate governance, while also providing an array of disclosure examples to illustrate unique approaches to strategic matters. The majority of firms will not encounter all, or even most, of the trends in this report in the New Year; it is primarily intended as a starting point for discussions that will take place over the course of 2013.
… Discussions between companies and shareholders will continue to drive changes as firms ensure the story they want told is communicated through a variety of mediums and methods. Concerns surrounding fairness in a number of areas including stock structure and pay will cause struggles between conflicting parties as focus continues to shift towards the decisions in the boardroom. Topics including shareholder engagement, board dynamics, Say on Pay, and pay for performance dominate this year’s report.
As with other Equilar publications, this report relies on a variety of actual disclosure examples, chosen to highlight current trends. We organized each issue into one of three broader categories: Board of Directors, Executive Pay, and Disclosure & Governance. We organized the issues into sections to help the reader navigate the report. To avoid emphasizing any single issue, the issues in each category are organized in alphabetical order under each category ».
Key Findings
« Most companies no longer award meeting fees to directors: The prevalence of S&P 1550 companies that provide director’s regular board meeting fees decreased from 59.8 percent to 44.3 percent between 2007 and 2011. Fixed annual retainers increased from 94.6 percent to 99.7 percent over the same period.
Female representation on boards increasing: In 2011, 76 percent of companies in the S&P 1500 had one or more female board member. The percentage of boards with no female directors fell from 29 percent to 24 percent between 2009 and 2011.
Boards continue move toward single classes: 59 percent of S&P 1500 companies had declassified boards in 2011, up from 49 percent in 2007.
Equity vehicle mix shifts to include performance shares: The number of companies providing performance-based equity to chief executives increased from 42.2 percent to 54.5 percent between 2007 and 2011.
Future of multi-class share structures remains unclear: Several high-profile public offerings in 2012 brought renewed attention to multi-class share structures increased the number of companies in the S&P 1500 with multiple classes of stock to 82.
Alternative pay tables becoming more common: While not widespread, in order to better illustrate pay stories, a number of companies are providing alternative pay tables and graphs, including pay-for-performance alignment and target versus realized pay.
Compensation Discussion & Analysis length trending upward: The average CD&A word count for S&P 1500 companies increased nearly 14 percent to 7,340 words between 2009 and 2011. CD&A word length ranged from 519 (Berkshire Hathaway) to 20,022 words (Telephone & Data Systems).
Internal pay equity closer for small and mid-cap companies: CEOs make 2 times more than the next ranked NEO in small and mid-cap companies, and 2.3 times more in large cap companies.
Increase in disclosures of realized and realizable pay: Although methods of calculating realized and realizable pay are not yet consistent among public companies, many companies are employing the use of realized or realizable pay in order to better explain compensation figures.
Proxy advisors using new methods for peer group selection: Proxy advisors Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis will both use new methods for peer groupselection in 2013. While it is unclear how this will affect advisory votes on pay, it is still important for companies themselves to give clear disclosure surrounding the peer groups created.
Earnings and revenue continue to be most commonly used performance metrics: In 2011, earnings were used as a metric in 49.8 percent of all awards, while 36.5 percent of all awards used revenue.
Initially exempt companies to have first Say on Pay vote in 2013: Firms with public floats of less than $75 million will hold their first votes for Say on Pay in 2013. It remains to be seen whether the trends for larger firms, which included less than 2 percent of firms failing a Say on Pay vote, will extend down to the smaller firms.
Shareholder outreach and engagement growing: The number of companies within the S&P 500 filing amended proxies in response to negative recommendations increased from 29 in 2011 to 42 in 2012".
J’ai récemment pris connaissance d’une entrevue conduite par C-Suite Insight avec Douglas K. Chia*, secrétaire corporatif de la firme Johnson & Johnson. Cette entrevue aborde essentiellement quatre sujets très importants pour les parties prenantes de l’entreprise : (1) les pratiques de planification de la relève de la direction, surtout du PCD (2) les pratiques de rémunération et la préparation du document CD&A (Compensation Discussion and Analysis), (3) les relations et les discussions avec les investisseurs institutionnels et (4) les communications avec les actionnaires, notamment les aspects concernant le Say on Pay et la création de valeur à long terme.
Voici un compte rendu de cette entrevue. Vos commentaires sont appréciés. Bonne lecture.
C-Suite Insight: What are the big issues that you’re considering as Johnson & Johnson prepares for proxy season?
Doug: Like many other high-profile companies, executive compensation is a critical item for us during proxy season, and we are looking at the continuum of the story that we’ve been telling for the last few years in our proxy statements. As you may have seen, there have been some major changes in our executive suite from last year to this year, specifically a succession from a long-tenured CEO, who is retiring after a remarkable 41-year career at J&J, to a new CEO. So, obviously this recent leadership succession will be a big focus area. We’ll also continue to emphasize the changes in the design of our compensation programs that have been made over the past few years, which we put a lot of effort into describing in last year’s proxy statement.
Headquarters of the Johnson & Johnson Company, One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA. Architect: Henry N. Cobb of the I. M. Pei Company, built 1983. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
CSI: Succession planning is a weakness in a lot of companies. So could you take us through succession planning at Johnson & Johnson, when it started, and how you worked your way through it?
Doug: For us, succession planning has always been something which has gone smoothly because it’s been thought out in advance. J&J has had only seven CEOs since becoming a public company in the early 1940s, and each one has come from the internal ranks. In the current case, we have an outgoing CEO who had served in the position for the past decade. The process of identifying potential successors for him started a number of years ago, in the 2010-2011 timeframe, and the lead candidates became apparent to the public. Our major investors were familiar and quite comfortable with the individuals who were being considered.
CSI: In succession planning and other major processes at J&J, how do you view long-term sustainable value and how do you view your engagement with shareholders?
Doug: We’ve always managed our business for the long-term, which is reflected in our culture by the fact that people tend to have very long careers at Johnson & Johnson. So, we have the benefit of being able to train up-and-coming leaders in a variety of business situations and give our Board exposure to them along the way. In terms of shareholder engagement, our major investors get exposed to many of our senior business leaders through investor conferences and meetings where they can talk in-depth about the businesses they are running. Over time, investors get familiar with a small cadre of J&J senior business leaders.
CSI: We have to mention Say on Pay. How did this issue affect you initially, and how do you address it when you’re writing a CD&A?
Doug: You cannot write the CD&A only thinking about the Say on Pay vote. This reminds me of what my teachers in school used to say: You shouldn’t “study to the test.” Instead, study the subject, master the subject, and then you will do fine on the test. So for us, writing the CD&A each year is about making sure we tell the story that reflects what’s taking place at the company, our compensation philosophy, the values we are trying to instill through our compensation plans, how our executives are paid, and what performance is being rewarded. We try to illustrate that we manage our business for the long-term and thus place a lot of focus on aligning executive compensation with our long-term investors. That being said, you do want to consider the vote outcome, keeping in mind the “advisory” nature of the vote. Suffice it to say that ours have not been where we want them to be, although we did gain support from over a majority of the votes cast in each of the last two years.
CSI: What have you done about this?
Doug: Over the past summer and fall, we had some of our Board members and senior management sit down with a diverse mix of investors, in one-on-one settings, specifically to talk about executive compensation. Through those discussions, we have been able to better understand the parts of our executive compensation program and our disclosure that could be enhanced. One point the investor discussions drove home that is important for all of us to remember when writing the CD&A is that for investors, the proxy statement is really all they have to rely on for information; they likely know very little else about the company’s pay programs.
So, we have to take a critical eye to what we’ve presented in the past and ask ourselves, “How can we tell our story better in order to make people understand the important context and rationale underlying these compensation decisions?” I think it’s fair to say that this process has helped us identify specific areas where we could have done a more effective job of telling our story. That’s something we’ll continue to work on this year and every year.
CSI: We’ve talked to major institutional investors such as TIAA-CREF and CalPERS, and also companies like BlackRock. They’ve stressed to us the importance of private engagement. In many cases, they think it’s more effective if they engage you privately. Is that your experience and what’s your view, how much do you welcome that sort of private engagement?
Doug: I think that’s right. One-on-one engagement is a very effective method of communication between companies and investors. The advantage of this direct engagement is the candid nature of the discussion that ensues when there is not an “audience” of outsiders. Over time, you can build strong relationships this way. In particular, “real-time” engagement, either by phone or in-person, provides the opportunity for the kind of constructive back-and-forth discussion that helps tease out critical issues. It helps both sides more precisely identify areas that need to be clarified. In the one-on-one meetings we had over the summer and fall, the investors we met with were able to get a real sense of just how much time and thought our Board members put into the decisions around executive compensation and how many factors come into play. Those are hard things to effectively illustrate to investors through a written document like a proxy statement.
CSI: Have these private dialogues increased in the last few years, in the era of Dodd-Frank?
Doug: Yes, I can say they have for us. We are more proactive than we had been in the past, and many of our investors have also become more proactive. Some who were not inclined to talk to us in the past are now more receptive to having a conversation.
CSI: How do you balance the tension between short-term results and a long-term commitment to spending money on R&D and creating long-term value?
Doug: It’s a tricky balance, but J&J has a long-term philosophy. It’s no secret to the investment community as we constantly emphasize that we manage the business for the long-term. So, to a certain extent, we’re expecting investors who have made significant investments in our company to have that same mindset. Most are investing in the company as a long-term play. However, when you have so many shareholders, they are not all going to agree with you on everything, so naturally there are going to be some shareholders who have a shorter-term outlook for a variety of reasons.
CSI: What sort of big picture advice would you give public companies, and in particular corporate secretaries, as they prepare for proxy season?
Doug: As far as corporate secretaries go, we exchange know-how quite a bit. One of the most rewarding parts of my job is establishing the kinds of relationships with my counterparts where we can help each other be better at what we do. On the subject of engagement, the basic message I like to convey to my peers is that they should be open to engagement with those investors who want to have real constructive dialogue. It’s a dynamic environment out there right now and you have to be thinking about how to make strategic adjustments.
Also, don’t be afraid to make a break with your past practices on what your disclosure looks like, or how much disclosure you want to give. We should all take a fresh look every year and ask ourselves, “What are people asking for and what makes sense to give to them?” These days, you can’t approach every disclosure requirement as something for which you’re only going to provide what a rule demands. If you do, your company will be missing a huge opportunity to tell its story.
Finally, for all of us, and corporate secretaries in particular, the key to the debate around executive compensation is creating an environment where your board members have everything they need to make well thought-out decisions. That’s what I think of when I hear people refer to “good governance.” We need to keep the focus on the integrity of the decisions, the underlying decision-making process, and the people who have the duty to make those decisions.
____________________________________
*Douglas K. Chia is Assistant General Counsel & Corporate Secretary at Johnson & Johnson, the world’s most comprehensive and broadly-based manufacturer of health care products, headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey. His responsibilities include providing legal counsel to the corporation on matters of corporate governance, securities regulation, public company disclosure, and Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance. Prior to joining Johnson & Johnson, Mr. Chia was Assistant General Counsel, Corporate at Tyco International. In private practice, Mr. Chia was an associate at the law firms of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Clifford Chance, practicing in the New York and Hong Kong offices of each firm. While in private practice, Mr. Chia provided legal counsel to issuers and underwriters on securities offerings and cross-border transactions. Mr. Chia is a member of the Board of Directors, Executive Steering Committee, Corporate Practices Committee, and Policy Advisory Committee of the Society of Corporate Secretaries & Governance Professionals, and is Chairman of the Society’s Membership Committee. Mr. Chia is also a member of the Corporate & Securities Law Committee of the Association of Corporate Counsel, as well as a member of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA).
Poursuivant notre politique de collaboration avec des experts en gouvernance, nous avons demandé à Hélène Solignac*, associée responsable des activités “gouvernance” de la firme française Rivoli Consulting, d’agir à titre d’auteure invitée. Le billet proposé est récemment paru sur son blogue; il traite d’un important rapport sur la gouvernance des entreprises françaises.
Le rapport de la mission parlementaire sur la transparence de la gouvernance des grandes entreprises françaises vient d’être publié (http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/rap-info/i0737.asp) : partant du postulat que le caractère excessif des rémunérations est souvent le symptôme le plus manifeste de défaillances affectant en profondeur les processus décisionnels des grandes entreprises, il dresse un état des lieux sur la clarté, la précision et l’exhaustivité des informations ayant trait non seulement aux rémunérations des dirigeants, mais également à la composition et au mode de fonctionnement des organes dirigeants, ainsi qu’à la définition et à la lisibilité de la stratégie des entreprises à moyen et long terme.
Voici donc l’article en question, reproduit ici avec la permission de l’auteure. Vos commentaires sont appréciés. Bonne lecture.
Le rapport de la mission parlementaire sur la transparence de la gouvernance des grandes entreprises françaises vient d’être publié (http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/rap-info/i0737.asp) : partant du postulat que le caractère excessif des rémunérations est souvent le symptôme le plus manifeste de défaillances affectant en profondeur les processus décisionnels des grandes entreprises, il dresse un état des lieux sur la clarté, la précision et l’exhaustivité des informations ayant trait non seulement aux rémunérations des dirigeants, mais également à la composition et au mode de fonctionnement des organes dirigeants, ainsi qu’à la définition et à la lisibilité de la stratégie des entreprises à moyen et long terme.
Sciences Po (Photo credit: livatlantis)
S’appuyant sur de nombreux échanges, sur les pratiques en vigueur dans d’autres pays, notamment le Royaume-Uni ou l’Allemagne, sur les orientations définies dans le plan d’action de l’Union Européenne sur le droit européen des sociétés et la gouvernance d’entreprise (http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0740:FIN:FR:PDF), ainsi que sur les diverses recommandations et pistes de réflexion de l’AMF, le rapport comporte un éventail très large de propositions allant des principes d’élaboration des codes de gouvernance et du contrôle de leur application à une meilleure implication des actionnaires et des parties prenantes, et en premier lieu les salariés.
Parmi ces propositions, retenons notamment :
A propos des codes de gouvernance
– l’obligation de se référer à un code de gouvernance, non seulement pour les sociétés cotées, mais également pour les sociétés non cotées dépassant certains seuils (500 salariés, 100 M€ de total de bilan ou de chiffre d’affaires),
– l’inscription dans la loi, d’une liste non exhaustive des questions devant être abordées par les codes de gouvernance,
– l’association des parties prenantes de l’entreprise à l’élaboration des codes de gouvernance et à leur actualisation (au moins tous les 3 ans), et l’instauration de pouvoirs de contrôle du contenu de ces codes et de la qualité des explications fournies par les entreprises dans le cadre de leur mise en application (AMF ou instance à définir pour les sociétés non cotées)
Sur les relations avec les actionnaires
– L’élaboration d’uncode de bonne conduite à l’attention des investisseurs, à l’exemple du “Stewardship code” britannique, pour renforcer leurs obligations en matière de vote et d’engagement,
– L’attribution par défaut de droits de vote doubles au-delà de deux ans, pour stabiliser l’actionnariat,
– L’abaissement du seuil de détention du capital requis pour déposer des projets de résolutions à l’assemblée générale
– L’instauration d’une action de groupe (class action) facilitant la mise en cause de la responsabilité des dirigeants-mandataires sociaux,
Sur la structure de gouvernance et l’association des salariés aux processus de décision
– La désignation, en cas de réunification des fonctions entre les mains d’un PDG, d’un administrateur référent dont les pouvoirs seraient précisés dans les statuts. Celui-ci serait en charge du dialogue avec toutes les parties prenantes de l’entreprise, et plus particulièrement avec les actionnaires et les pouvoirs publics,
– L’instauration par la loi de l’obligation pour les entreprises de créer un comité des rémunérations,
– La représentation des salariés non actionnaires aux conseils des entreprises de plus de 5000 salariés,
– L’encadrement du cumul des mandats sociaux, et le cumul contrat de travail/mandat social,
– L’introduction dans les codes de gouvernance de mesures favorisant l’intégration des femmes aux comités de direction ou comités exécutifs (« comex »),
– La généralisation, au sein des conseils d’administration ou de surveillance, de comités des risques chargés d’informer les conseils d’administration ou de surveillance ainsi que les comités d’entreprise deux fois par an.
Sur la rémunération des dirigeants
– L’instauration du Say on Pay : le rapport propose différentes modalités (vote consultatif ou non, vote sur les grands principes de la politique de rémunération ou sur le détail des rémunérations,
– L’interdiction des retraites-chapeau et des indemnités de départ en cas de départ volontaire,
– L’incitation à accorder plus de poids aux critères de performance extra- financiers et de long terme dans les rémunérations globales des dirigeants-mandataires sociaux, y compris les stock-options et actions gratuites
– Privilégier, au plafonnement des rémunérations, une réforme de la fiscalité portant sur l’ensemble des hauts revenus.
Par la diversité de ses propositions, en mettant l’accent sur le long terme et l’association des parties prenantes, la mission parlementaire ouvre la voie à des évolutions très significatives de la gouvernance dans les entreprises françaises, cotées ou non cotées.
En refusant d’imposer certaines règles bien établies dans d’autres pays, telles que la dissociation des fonctions ou le principe “One Share On Vote”, en privilégiant l’application du principe “Comply or Explain” à l’adoption de règles juridiques trop contraignantes, elle cherche à favoriser la concertation et le dialogue.
Le projet de loi devra être déposé par le gouvernement très prochainement, et voté d’ici l’été. A suivre…
________________________________
* Hélène Solignac est associée responsable des activités “gouvernance” de la firme Rivoli Consulting depuis 2009. Diplômée de Sciences Po, Hélène Solignac a exercé des responsabilités au sein du Crédit Lyonnais pendant près de 20 ans, d’abord en tant que responsable commercial auprès de grands groupes internationaux; elle a participé, comme secrétaire du conseil d’administration et des comités de direction générale, à la privatisation et à l’introduction en bourse de la banque, avant de prendre en charge le suivi des filiales et participations à la direction financière du groupe, où elle a exercé des mandats d’administrateur dans différentes filiales.
En 2006, elle a rejoint InvestorSight, conseil en communication financière, membre associé de l’Institut Français des Administrateurs, comme responsable du pôle Gouvernance ; elle a développé une activité de conseil en préparation d’assemblées générales et est notamment intervenue sur des dossiers d’activisme actionnarial ; elle a participé à différentes études sur ce thème des assemblées générales qu’elle a présentées dans le cadre de Matinales de l’IFA et a également été rédactrice de la « Lettre des AG » (analyse des assemblées générales du SBF 120).
Elle est présentement Corporate Advisory auprès de Sodali, conseillère en relations actionnariales pour les sociétés cotées, responsable de la formation « Actif humain » du Certificat Administrateur de Société Sciences Po-IFA, Co-fondatrice du Cercle des Administrateurs Sciences Po, membre de l’IFA et de l’AFGE (Association Française de Gouvernement d’Entreprise) et administratrice de l’association humanitaire Matins du Soleil.
Aujourd’hui, je vous propose la version française de la 7ième prise de position de l’Institut sur la gouvernance d’organisations privées et publiques (IGOPP), publiée par Yvan Allaire,* PCA (président du conseil) de l’Institut. Le document explique clairement l’influence accrue de firmes (telles que ISS) qui se spécialisent dans la gestion des procurations et dans les conseils aux investisseurs institutionnels, aux fonds de placement, aux actionnaires activistes ainsi qu’aux entreprises cotées, soucieuses d’obtenir de « sages conseils d’experts » sur l’efficacité de leur mode de gouvernance.
Cette prise de position de l’auteur du rapport décrit les problèmes observés eu égard au modèle d’affaires de ces firmes spécialisées (manque de transparence, conflits d’intérêts, analyses déficientes, etc.) et fait des recommandations pertinentes aux principales organisations intéressées : (1) les investisseurs institutionnels, en tant que clients et (2) les autorités règlementaires canadiennes, en tant que gardiennes de l’intégrité des marchés financiers.
Je vous invite donc à prendre connaissance du document, Le rôle préoccupant des agences de conseil en vote (« proxy advisors »): quelques recommandations de politiques, que vous trouverez ci-dessous ou sur le site de l’IGOPP.
« Les conseillers en vote se trouvent aujourd’hui dans une position forte d’où ils peuvent faire la leçon aux dirigeants d’entreprises et aux conseils d’administration sur tous les aspects de la gouvernance et de la rémunération; n’étant ni investisseurs ni conseillers en placement, ils profitent d’une licence pour « formuler des recommandations » aux investisseurs quant à la manière de s’acquitter de leur responsabilité fiduciaire en tant qu’actionnaires.
Yvan Allaire – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2010 Davos (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)
Leur influence s’est accrue en dépit de critiques répétées de leur performance, parce que les investisseurs semblent trouver ces « conseillers » utiles, dans la mesure où ils allègent la tâche ardue pour les investisseurs de mener les analyses et évaluations nécessaires pour exercer leur droit de vote de façon responsable. En l’absence de réglementation, d’encadrement et de supervision, leur modèle d’affaires est tel qu’il leur est pour ainsi dire impossible de traiter avec attention et réactivité le volume considérable de rapports qu’ils doivent produire dans un très court laps de temps. Dans le cas d’ISS, l’agence est aussi vulnérable aux conflits d’intérêts ».
_______________________________________
* Yvan Allaire est président exécutif du conseil d’administration de l’Institut sur la gouvernance (IGOPP) et professeur émérite de stratégie à l’UQÀM. Il est membre de la Société royale du Canada ainsi que du Council on Global Business Issues du World Economic. Professeur de stratégie pendant plus de 25 ans, il est auteur de plusieurs ouvrages et articles sur la stratégie d’entreprises et la gouvernance des sociétés publiques et privées, dont les plus récents coécrit avec le professeur Mihaela Firsirotu : Capitalism of Owners (IGOPP, 2012), Plaidoyer pour un nouveau capitalisme (IGOPP, 2010), Black Markets and Business Blues (FI Press, 2009), à propos de la crise financière et de la réforme du capitalisme.
« Sam is an experienced manager and has worked for over twenty years in his industry. He has also sat on two not-for-profit boards and enjoys the governance role. Now he has an opportunity to buy an equity stake in a small business that has a product and service for which market demand is growing.
The business has not been growing quickly due to flat market conditions and revenue has not increased substantially as a consequence. The current owners are a husband and wife team and are tired; they have run the business for many years and want to retire.
The proposal is that Sam should purchase 40% of the company and take a seat on the board. The existing owners would retain 30% equity each and a shareholder’s agreement would stipulate that board decisions would require a 70% majority to be agreed. The current board has three members consisting of the owners and an ‘independent’ chairman who is the lawyer and a long-standing friend of the owners. The proposal is that he should remain as “he adds a lot of value and sees things we would miss”.
Sam intends not to work in the company but to be merely a shareholder and director. He has ideas for improving the growth and increasing the value of the company but wants to retain his full time employment in a larger corporation as a security measure. His employer is happy for him to take on a board seat and there is no direct competition between the two companies so Sam would have no conflict of interest; however, Sam’s boss, who is a friend and mentor to Sam, is uneasy and has suggested that Sam could find himself outmanoeuvred in the boardroom and overcharged for his equity. Sam is appreciative of the counsel but believes the shareholder agreement protects his interests. He would like to discuss board dynamics with the current owners but they seem not to be interested as they say the Chairman handles all the compliance and they just run the business so there is nothing to worry about ».
Quels conseil donneriez-vous à Sam ? Esquissez une réponse avant de consulter les avis des experts sur le sujet ci-dessous !
Doug’s Answer
Owning part of an SME is much more than an equity purchase and a board position. High level strategic and governance oversight is not enough; it takes a more ‘hands-on’ involvement.
The owners have realised they have had enough. Under the current proposal there is little in the way of resolving the typical SME succession dilemma; specifically:
Who has the skill and energy to ultimately take control and drive the business?
How to extract full value for the business which substantially funds retirement?
The board risks stalemate and conflict in decisions with a Chair aligned with current owners. Not a good outcome for the business, Sam or the current owners.
For this to be a win / win for everyone, an agreed succession plan should be part of Sam’s due diligence process along the following lines:
Sam’s intentions, post current-owners succession, should be clarified and agreed
The appointment of an independent chair and an independent director experienced in the same industry should be agreed
Untapped management talent existing within the business and a skilling, education and promotion program outlined
Recruitment program for management where gaps are identified
Current owners agree to an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) where appropriate
Key client and supplier relationships transition to the wider management team.
Sam should further protect his minority interests by holding pre-emptive rights to purchase the remaining shares should they be on offer, notwithstanding the ESOP mentioned above.
By clarifying all the stakeholders’ intentions and aspirations, the business presents a unified front with management, the board and shareholders “singing from the same songbook”.
Doug Jardine provides consulting services to owner operated businesses and boards and is based in Sydney.
Julie’s Answer
There is more to a board than compliance. Managers accustomed to running things as they see fit whilst relying on a lawyer to put together a semblance of compliance at board level are not going to make good board colleagues. Sam has some good ideas but unless they are also in the shareholder agreement (with dates and budgets) they will likely never get implemented.
Already the board is set for deadlock whenever the existing directors disagree with Sam. The 70% required for decision-making is a nonsense as Sam will find he either has to conform to the wishes of a husband and wife team or try to split them. They might as well stipulate 100% consensus as that is all that will work in the circumstances. It is also a pretty good way to run a board.
I usually hate quasi-equity as it tends to complicate matters but Sam could look into having a preference share which is repayable as debt and converts to equity only when the strategy reaches certain milestones.
What he most needs to do is sit down with the current owners and talk, long, hard and deep, about what this company is really supposed to achieve. It looks as if it has always been supposed to provide a certain lifestyle and income for the owners. But what about the future? What do they now want the company to be?
If they can agree on a vision and set aside enough of Sam’s investment to fund the new actions that must be taken to achieve the vision, then they may be able to grow the company to a stage where a profitable exit is achievable. If they can’t agree on exactly what the vision is and how they will work to achieve it – Now – In detail – Sam should not invest.
Julie Garland McLellan is a practising non-executive director and board consultant based in Sydney, Australia.
Simon’s Answer
Sam takes an equity share to help grow the company (future nest egg). The owners (husband and wife) want to retire and secure as much money as possible from the asset sale (nest egg right now). Neither party wants any ongoing operational involvement – what is this deal really about? Are the owners serious in selling or grabbing equity dollars?
The 70% rule subjugates Sam’s rights and restricts the potential for business improvements but also terrifyingly entrenches the owners’ current policies, practices and procedures. A resolution to change anything requires the support of Sam, the Chairman (even if he/she places director duties ahead of friendship) and one of the owners – good luck with that.
There needs to be far more discussion by all parties about the fundamentals of this deal before it proceeds any further.
Sam is a minority shareholder with a Shareholders’ Agreement (SA) that lacks rigour, inclusion of, and agreement on, significant matters. The SA affords Sam no rights protection, no restriction on changes in each owner’s equity or share ownership, no restraint of trade restriction on the owners once retired and no provisions for breaking deadlocks e.g. mediation which will be inevitable given the 70% rule.
There is no guarantee that the owners will be unified on either the quantum or timeframe for retirement and the SA needs to reconcile that fact. The owners (or one of them) could just sell the remaining 60% (30%) to another party or give the shareholding to their beneficiaries. What is the agreed owner exit strategy and succession plan? There is no first right of refusal (including terms) for Sam to buyout one or both owners.
What happens if one or both owners prematurely die/separate or become incapacitated? What happens if Sam dies or is incapacitated or simply wants to get out? These all need to be included in the SA with trigger events established, agreed timeframes and pre-calculated quantum.
Now is the time to construct a rigorous SA, if any party baulks now, better to establish that at the outset before the dollars are committed. If Sam acts in haste, he/she can repent at leisure.
Simon Pinnock is a professional and practising non-executive director and Board consultant. He is based in Melbourne, Australia.
Dans un article à être publié bientôt, Richard Leblanc* répond à certaines questions concernant les meilleures pratiques de gouvernance eu égard à la communications entre le C.A. et les actionnaires. Voici trois points de vue de l’auteur publiés dans le groupe de discussion Board & Advisors de LinkedIn :
(1) “Management needs to be instructed by the Chairman not to interfere with shareholder engagement performed by directors. Directors are the agents of shareholders and shareholders want to talk to their elected representatives about governance matters. This is not the day-to-day business of the company.
communication (Photo credit: flavijus)
Management speaks for the company; directors speak for the shareholders and management should not be involved in, nor causing undo influence over, that relationship. The Chair of the SEC was abundantly clear, that reg. FD is not a barrier to board-shareholder communication and fair disclosure speaks to matters of material information, not governance matters.”
(2) « Boards should retain their own counsel, independent of that of management, when seeking counsel on what they should and should not say in their outreach to shareholders.”
(3) “Not only do directors need to step up in this responsibility for open communication, but also shareholders need to step up and meet with directors and be transparent in those communications.”
____________________________________
* Richard W. Leblanc, Associate Professor, Law, Governance & Ethics, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies, York University. Dr Leblanc has served as an external advisor to boards that have won national awards and peer endorsement from institutional shareholders for their corporate governance practices and has also acted as a corporate governance expert witness in recent years. He has conducted over two hundred director interviews and has studied, advised and/or assessed dozens of boards in action. This work has spanned audit, compensation, nominating and governance committees, chairs of boards, chairs of board committees and CEOs. Click here for more.
Voici un article très intéressant publié le 25 février 2013 par D. F. Larcker, A. L. McCall, et B. Tayan dans Stanford Closer Look Series. Les auteurs expliquent très clairement (1) la raison d’être des firmes qui procurent des conseils aux organisations qui détiennent des procurations (Proxy Advisory Firms), (2) le mode de fonctionnement d’entreprises telles que Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) et Glass Lewis & Co) et (3) certaines lacunes de leur processus d’analyse.
Que vous soyez d’accord ou non avec les conclusions de l’article, celui-ci vous aidera sûrement à mieux comprendre le modèle d’affaires des firmes qui font des recommandations de vote, notamment aux investisseurs institutionnels. Les auteurs expliquent aussi la méthodologie utilisée par ces firmes pour arriver aux recommandations de vote. On donne également des exemples précis de questions posées aux répondants et on montre comment certaines d’entre elles ont des problèmes de design (biais, généralisation, ambiguïtés, imprécisions, etc.).
Cet article nous aide à mieux saisir la complexité de ces firmes, et leur influence grandissante dans le monde de la gouvernance ! Voici un extrait de l’introduction de l’article. Vos commentaires sont appréciés.
« The Role of Proxy Advisory Firms Proxy advisory firms are independent, for-profit consulting companies that provide research and voting recommendations on corporate governance matters brought before investors at shareholder meetings. These matters include the election of the board of directors, approval of equity-based compensation programs, advisory approval of management compensation, and other management- and shareholder-sponsored initiatives regarding board structure, compensation design, and other governance policies and procedures.
There are many reasons why investors might choose to consult with third-party advisors when voting their position on these matters. Institutional investors are generally required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to vote all matters on the corporate proxy and disclose their votes to beneficial owners of their funds. Given the size and diversity of their holdings, it might be impractical for professional investors to have a thorough understanding of all items brought before them. Small investors, in particular, might not employ sufficient analytical staff to review all proposals in detail. For these reasons, reliable and valid third-party recommendations can contribute to a well-functioning market by improving information flow between issuers and investors leading to better decisions on compensation and corporate governance ».
Je vous invite à lire un article du blogue de Triple Ethos rédigé par Richard Lawton* portant sur le rôle crucial du conseil d’administration en matière de comportement éthique et responsable au sein de la direction des entreprises. L’article met l’accent sur l’approche d’un sain skepticisme de la part des membres de C.A. qui s’applique non seulement aux aspects financiers mais aussi à la performance sociale et environnementale de l’entreprise.
Faire confiance mais vérifier doit être l’attitude à adopter dans notre rôle d’administrateur. Il est important que les comportements de l’entreprise soient en ligne avec la mission et les valeurs publiquement affichées. L’auteur présente un cas patent, celui de l’industrie pharmaceuthique aux É.U.
« The cover feature of NACD Directorship magazine is on “Honing Skepticism – Trust, but verify is the skeptics mantra. Why professional skepticism is one of the most important skills for directors – and how to develop a questioning mind-set.” The article’s focus is primarily centered on the economic aspect – avoiding financial statement fraud. And while this is certainly critical given the well-publicized failures of fiduciary oversight in the past decade, I’d like to suggest that the scope of board skepticism should include a company’s social and environmental performance.
Skepticism (Photo credit: jonanamary)
The Business Roundtable notes in its 2012 Principles of Corporate Governance that “effective directors maintain an attitude of constructive skepticism; they ask incisive, probing questions and require accurate, honest answers.” This attitude should not only apply to financial statements, it should also apply to advertising, public relations, sustainability and corporate responsibility reports with the company’s mission and values used as touchstones ».
______________________________
*Richard Lawton founded Triple Ethos in 2012 after earning an MBA in Sustainability from Antioch University New England and being named a Governance Fellow with the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD). He currently serves on the Boards of two non-profits with mission-driven earned revenue models, and recently earned his “Applying the Principles of Servant Leadership” certification from the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. He has served in executive-level positions with Time Inc., Barnes & Noble, and Comag Marketing Group (a joint venture between Hearst and Conde Nast) where his management responsibilities included a wide range of corporate functions including sales, marketing, marketing analysis, information systems, supply chain management, human resources, and corporate communications. Recognized by Folio magazine as “being one of the magazine industry’s top 40 influencers and innovators”, Richard led initiatives to make the retail supply chain more efficient and profitable while reducing its environmental impact. He has presented at numerous industry conferences, published articles on improving supply chain efficiency, and served on the Magazine Publishers Association’s Environmental Task Force and Walmart’s magazine sustainability committee.
Aujourd’hui, je vous propose la lecture de la 7ième prise de position de l’Institut sur la gouvernance d’organisations privées et publiques (IGOPP), publiée par Yvan Allaire,* PCA (président du conseil) de l’Institut. Le document explique clairement l’influence accrue de firmes (telles que ISS) qui se spécialisent dans la gestion des procurations et dans les conseils aux investisseurs institutionnels, aux fonds de placement, aux actionnaires activistes ainsi qu’aux entreprises cotées, soucieuses d’obtenir de « sages conseils d’experts » sur l’efficacité de leur mode de gouvernance.
Cette prise de position d’Yvan Allaire décrit les problèmes observés eu égard au modèle d’affaires de ces firmes spécialisées (manque de transparence, conflits d’intérêts, analyses déficientes, etc.) et fait des recommandations pertinentes aux principales organisations intéressées : (1) les investisseurs institutionnels, en tant que clients et (2) les autorités règlementaires canadiennes, en tant que gardiennes de l’intégrité des marchés financiers.
Je vous invite donc à prendre connaissance du document, Le rôle préoccupant des gestionnaires de procuration : quelques recommandations de politiques, que vous trouverez en version anglaise sur le site de l’IGOPP.
« Proxy advisors now stand in a bully pulpit from which to harangue corporate management and boards of directors on all matters of governance and compensation; neither investors, nor investment advisers, they enjoy a franchise to « make recommendations » to investors on how to discharge their fiduciary responsibility as shareholders.
Toronto Stock Exchange (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Their influence has grown in spite of repeated criticism of their performance, because investors seemed to find these « advisors » useful in discharging what could be an onerous responsibility. Neither regulated, nor supervised, proxy advisers rely on a business model that makes it virtually impossible for them to handle with care and responsiveness the sheer volume of reports they have to produce in a very short period of time. In the case of ISS, the firm is also vulnerable to conflicts of interests ».
_______________________________________
* Yvan Allaire est président exécutif du conseil d’administration de l’Institut sur la gouvernance (IGOPP) et professeur émérite de stratégie à l’UQÀM. Il est membre de la Société royale du Canada ainsi que du Council on Global Business Issues du World Economic. Professeur de stratégie pendant plus de 25 ans, il est auteur de plusieurs ouvrages et articles sur la stratégie d’entreprises et la gouvernance des sociétés publiques et privées, dont les plus récents coécrit avec le professeur Mihaela Firsirotu : Capitalism of Owners (IGOPP, 2012), Plaidoyer pour un nouveau capitalisme (IGOPP, 2010), Black Markets and Business Blues (FI Press, 2009), à propos de la crise financière et de la réforme du capitalisme.
Dans son dernier billet, Richard Leblanc pose une question fondamentale en matière de gestion des risques par le comité d’audit : Devez-vous revoir en profondeur les responsabilités du comité d’audit afin de mieux circonscrire la surveillance des risques ?
Au cours de la dernière décennie, on a assisté à plusieurs échecs, directement reliés aux défaillances des mécanismes de gestion des risques, notamment le manque de contrôle interne et l’absence d’une fonction d’auditeur interne. Traditionnellement, c’est le comité d’audit qui se voit confier la tâche de superviser les risques auxquels font face les entreprises. Mais, comme l’article le montre, il y a une multitude de risques à considérer, et ceux-ci ne sont pas tous d’ordre financier ! De plus, aucune règlementation ne spécifie que c’est le comité d’audit qui doit exercer cette activité. Si bien qu’il est fort possible que le comité ne soit pas toujours le mieux qualifié pour jouer ce rôle.
Dans son article, Richard Leblanc, identifie douze questions qu’un C.A. doit se poser à cet égard. Je vous invite donc à prendre connaissances de l’article paru sur son blogue le 24 février 2013. Qu’en pensez-vous ? Pose-t-on de trop grandes exigences aux comités d’audit ?
« …Risk systems in many companies are immature. Look at BP, Wal-Mart, JP Morgan, HSBC, News of the World, Barclays, SNC Lavalin and MF Global. These are all risk management failures, which are turn are governance failures.
There is good reason for risk management failure. Proper risk management requires internal controls to mitigate risk. (Internal controls are processes and procedures such as segregation of duties, documentation, authorization, supervision, physical safeguards, IT security and prevention of management override.) No one likes to be controlled. Risk management is not intrinsically profit-making. Therefore there is an inherent aversion to risk management by management. This is why regulators now are targeting boards with greater risk governance obligations because only the board has the authority to control management. Recent bank governance guidelines in Canada require much stronger risk oversight by boards and audit committees. Recent Ontario Securities Commission guidelines offer advice to boards and audit committees with operations in emerging markets, coming out of the Sino-Forest debacle ».
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 