Les administrateurs de sociétés doivent apporter une attention spéciale à la gestion des risques telle qu’elle est mise en œuvre par les dirigeants des entreprises.
Les préoccupations des fiduciaires pour la gestion des risques, quoique fondamentales, sont relativement récentes, et les administrateurs ne savent souvent pas comment aborder cette question.
L’article présenté, ci-dessous, est le fruit d’une recherche de Martin Lipton, fondateur de la firme Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, spécialisée dans les fusions et acquisitions ainsi que dans les affaires de gouvernance.
L’auteur et ses collaborateurs ont produit un guide des pratiques exemplaires en matière de gestion des risques. Cet article de fond s’adresse aux administrateurs et touche aux éléments-clés de la gestion des risques :
(1) la distinction entre la supervision des risques et la gestion des risques ;
(2) les leçons que l’on doit tirer de la supervision des risques à Wells Fargo ;
(3) l’importance accordée par les investisseurs institutionnels aux questions des risques ;
(4) « tone at the top » et culture organisationnelle ;
(5) les devoirs fiduciaires, les contraintes réglementaires et les meilleures pratiques ;
(6) quelques recommandations spécifiques pour améliorer la supervision des risques ;
(7) les programmes de conformité juridiques ;
(8) les considérations touchant les questions de cybersécurité ;
(9) quelques facettes se rapportant aux risques environnementaux, sociaux et de gouvernance ;
(10) l’anticipation des risques futurs.
Voici donc l’introduction de l’article. Je vous invite à prendre connaissance de l’article au complet.
The past year has seen continued evolution in the political, legal and economic arenas as technological change accelerates. Innovation, new business models, dealmaking and rapidly evolving technologies are transforming competitive and industry landscapes and impacting companies’ strategic plans and prospects for sustainable, long-term value creation. Tax reform has created new opportunities and challenges for companies too. Meanwhile, the severe consequences that can flow from misconduct within an organization serve as a reminder that corporate operations are fraught with risk. Social and environmental issues, including heightened focus on income inequality and economic disparities, scrutiny of sexual misconduct issues and evolving views on climate change and natural disasters, have taken on a new salience in the public sphere, requiring companies to exercise utmost care to address legitimate issues and avoid public relations crises and liability.
Corporate risk taking and the monitoring of corporate risk remain prominently top of mind for boards of directors, investors, legislators and the media. Major institutional shareholders and proxy advisory firms increasingly evaluate risk oversight matters when considering withhold votes in uncontested director elections and routinely engage companies on risk-related topics. This focus on risk management has also led to increased scrutiny of compensation arrangements throughout the organization that have the potential for incentivizing excessive risk taking. Risk management is no longer simply a business and operational responsibility of management. It has also become a governance issue that is squarely within the oversight responsibility of the board. This post highlights a number of issues that have remained critical over the years and provides an update to reflect emerging and recent developments. Key topics addressed in this post include:
the distinction between risk oversight and risk management;
a lesson from Wells Fargo on risk oversight;
the strong institutional investor focus on risk matters;
tone at the top and corporate culture;
fiduciary duties, legal and regulatory frameworks and third-party guidance on best practices;
specific recommendations for improving risk oversight;
legal compliance programs;
special considerations regarding cybersecurity matters;
special considerations pertaining to environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks; and
Voici un article qui met en garde les structures de gouvernance telles que Facebook.
L’article publié sur le site de Directors&Boards par Eve Tahmincioglu soulève plusieurs questions fondamentales :
(1) L’actionnariat à vote multiple conduit-il à une structure de gouvernance convenable et acceptable ?
(2) Pourquoi le principe de gouvernance stipulant une action, un vote, est-il bafoué dans le cas de plusieurs entreprises de la Silicone Valley ?
(3) Quel est le véritable pouvoir d’un conseil d’administration où les fondateurs sont majoritaires par le jeu des actions à classe multiple ?
(4) Doit-on réglementer pour rétablir la position de suprématie du conseil d’administration dirigé par des administrateurs indépendants ?
(5) Dans une situation de gestion de crise comme celle qui confronte Facebook, quel est le rôle d’un administrateur indépendant, président de conseil ?
(6) Les médias cherchent à connaître la position du PDG sans se questionner sur les responsabilités des administrateurs. Est-ce normal en gestion de crise ?
Je vous invite à lire l’article ci-dessous et à exprimer vos idées sur les principes de bonne gouvernance appliqués aux entreprises publiques contrôlées par les fondateurs.
Facebook is arguably facing one of the toughest challenges the company has ever faced. But the slow and tepid response from leadership, including the boards of directors, concerns governance experts.
The scandal involving data-mining firm Cambridge Analytica allegedly led to 50 million Facebook users’ private information being compromised but a public accounting from Facebook’s CEO and chairman Mark Zuckerberg has been slow coming.
Could this be a governance breakdown?
“This high-powered board needs to engage more strongly,” says Steve Odland, CEO of the Committee for Economic Development and a board member for General Mills, Inc. and Analogic Corporation. Facebook’s board includes Netflix’s CEO Reed Hastings; Susan D. Desmond-Hellmann, CEO of The Gates Foundation; the former chairman of American Express Kenneth I. Chenault; and PayPal cofounder Peter A. Thiel, among others.
Odland points out that Facebook has two powerful and well-known executives, Zuckerberg and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, who have been publicly out there on every subject, but largely absent on this one.
“They need to get out and publicly talk about this quickly,” Odland maintains. “They didn’t have to have all the answers. But this vacuum of communications gets filled by others, and that’s not good for the company.”
Indeed, politicians, the Federal Trade Commission and European politicians are stepping in, he says, “and that could threaten the whole platform.”
Typically, he adds, it comes back to management to engage and use the board, but “I don’t think Zuckerberg is all that experienced in that regard. This is where the board needs to help him.”
But how much power does the board have?
Charles Elson, director of the University of Delaware’s Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance, sees the dual-class ownership structure of Facebook that gives the majority of voting power to Zuckerberg and thus undermines shareholders and the board’s power.
“It’s his board because of the dual-class stock. There is nothing [directors] can do; neither can the shareholders and a lawsuit would yield really nothing,” he explains.
Increasingly, company founders have been opting to shore up control by creating stock ownership structures that undercut shareholder voting power, where only a decade ago almost all chose the standard and accepted one-share, one-vote model.
Now the Snap Inc. initial public offering (IPO) takes it even further with the first-ever solely non-voting stock model. It’s a stock ownership structure that further undercuts shareholder influence, undermines corporate governance and will likely shift the burden of investment grievances to the courts.
By offering stock in the company with no shareholder vote at all, Snap — the company behind the popular mobile-messaging app Snapchat that’s all about giving a voice to the many — has acknowledged that public voting power at companies with a hierarchy of stock ownership classes is only a fiction. And it begs the question: Why does Snap even need a board?
Alas, Facebook’s shares have tanked as a result of the Cambridge Analytica revelations, and it’s unclear what’s happening among the leaders at Facebook to deal with the crisis.
Facebook’s board, advises Odland, needs to get involved and help create privacy policies and if those are violated, they need to follow up.
“This is a relatively young company in a relatively young industry that has grown to be a powerhouse and incredibly important,” he explains. Given that, he says, there are “new forms of risk management this board needs to tackle.”
Le récent rapport de KPMG sur les grandes tendances en audit présente sept défis que les membres des CA, notamment les membres des comités d’audit, doivent considérer afin de bien s’acquitter de leurs responsabilités dans la gouvernance des sociétés.
Le rapport a été rédigé par des professionnels en audit de la firme KPMG ainsi que par le Conference Board du Canada.
Les sept défis abordés dans le rapport sont les suivants :
– talent et capital humain ;
– technologie et cybersécurité ;
– perturbation des modèles d’affaires ;
– paysage réglementaire en évolution ;
– incertitude politique et économique ;
– évolution des attentes en matière de présentation de l’information ;
– environnement et changements climatiques.
Je vous invite à consulter le rapport complet ci-dessous pour de plus amples informations sur chaque enjeu.
Alors que l’innovation technologique et la cybersécurité continuent d’avoir un impact croissant sur le monde des finances et des affaires à l’échelle mondiale, tant les comités d’audit que les chefs des finances reconnaissent le besoin de compter sur des talents de haut calibre pour contribuer à affronter ces défis et à en tirer parti.
Le rôle du comité d’audit est de s’assurer que l’organisation dispose des bonnes personnes possédant l’expérience et les connaissances requises, tant au niveau de la gestion et des opérations qu’au sein même de sa constitution. Il ne s’agit que de l’un des nombreux défis à avoir fait surface dans le cadre de ce troisième numéro du rapport Tendances en audit.
Les comités d’audit d’aujourd’hui ont la responsabilité d’aider les organisations à s’orienter parmi les nombreux enjeux et défis plus complexes que jamais auxquels ils font face, tout en remplissant leur mandat traditionnel de conformité et de présentation de l’information. Alors que les comités d’audit sont pleinement conscients de cette nécessité, notre rapport indique que les comités d’audit et les chefs des finances se demandent dans quelle mesure leur organisation est bien positionnée pour faire face à la gamme complète des tendances actuelles et émergentes.
Pour mettre en lumière cette préoccupation et d’autres enjeux clés, le rapport Tendances en audit se penche sur les sept défis qui suivent :
talent et capital humain;
technologie et cybersécurité;
perturbation des modèles d’affaires;
paysage réglementaire en évolution;
incertitude politique et économique;
évolution des attentes en matière de présentation de l’information;
environnement et changements climatiques.
Au fil de l’évolution des mandats et des responsabilités, ce rapport se révélera être une ressource précieuse pour l’ensemble des parties prenantes en audit.
L’une des questions prédominantes — et souvent controversées — dans l’évaluation des principes de saine gouvernance concerne l’indépendance des administrateurs.
L’Institut sur la gouvernance (IGOPP) propose une approche nouvelle et originale sur la question de l’indépendance des membres des conseils d’administration.
Dans un document « L’indépendance des conseils : un enjeu de légitimité », l’IGOPP propose que toute organisation dotée d’un conseil d’administration cherche à constituer un conseil qui soit à la fois légitime et crédible.
L’enjeu n’est pas tellement l’indépendance des conseils mais bien leur légitimité et leur crédibilité. La qualité d’indépendance ne prend son sens que si elle contribue à rehausser la légitimité d’un conseil.
C’est par sa légitimité qu’un conseil acquiert le droit et l’autorité de s’imposer à la direction d’une organisation. Les conseils d’organisations publiques ou privées, sans actionnaire ou sans actionnaire actif détenant plus de 10 % du capital-actions ordinaire, devraient être composés d’une majorité nette d’administrateurs indépendants. De plus, tous leurs comités statutaires devraient être composés exclusivement de membres indépendants.
L’article ci-dessous, écrit à la suite d’une table ronde réunissant plusieurs spécialistes de la gouvernance européenne, aborde trois sujets incontournables, en tentant de tirer des enseignements pour le futur :
(1) l’indépendance des administrateurs et la pertinence du concept
(2) les divers aspects de la rémunération et les obligations fiduciaires
(3) l’identification des actionnaires et les questions de procuration des votes
Dans ce billet, nous vous proposons les questionnements reliés à l’indépendance des administrateurs.
L’indépendance est-elle une bonne idée ?
Quels sont les problèmes liés à l’indépendance ?
Quels sont les résultats de recherche qui montrent que l’indépendance améliore la qualité de la gouvernance ?
Comment composer avec l’influence des gestionnaires et des conflits d’intérêts ?
L’article publié par Christian Strenger*est paru sur le site de Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Govervance.
Alors, selon vous, pourquoi l’indépendance des administrateurs est-elle un gage de bonne gouvernance ?
Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
L’indépendance des administrateurs : panacée ou boîte de Pandore?
Board Independence: the Quality Question and dealing with Insider Issues
Background
A reliable formula for board effectiveness has been elusive, but the importance of effective boards warrants ongoing reflection and research by both academics and practitioners.
In spite of the diversity of governance models around the world, the concept of independence plays a prominent role in most, if not all, codes of governance globally as an intrinsic component of good board structure. For example, independence features, to varying degrees of emphasis, in the governance frameworks of the US, UK, Germany and Japan. It is also reflected in global frameworks, such as the ICGN Global Governance Principles or the OECD Corporate Governance Principles.
But what does independence mean in a corporate governance context, and does it deliver what we want it to? This session seeks to challenge how we think about independence and addresses several fundamental questions relating to boards and corporate governance:
Is board independence essential to quality in corporate governance—or is independence simply a placebo that doesn’t do anything but makes us feel better?
What do we expect board independence to achieve in practical terms?
Are independent directors really in a position to monitor and control corporate insiders?
These are questions that have relevance for company managers and directors, but also for investors, regulators and stakeholders.
Role of boards
A company’s board of directors is at the core of its corporate governance. Boards play a range of advisory and control functions. This includes strategic direction and risk/control oversight, along with the monitoring and reward of executive management.
At a more overarching level, agency theory suggests that one of the key roles of the board is to serve as an agent protecting the interests of shareholders vis-à-vis company management or controlling owners. This reflects a duty of care to support the company’s long-term success and sustainable value creation and to ensure the alignment of interests between management, controlling owners, minority investors—taking into account stakeholder interests as well.
Why is independence a good idea?
Shareholders and other stakeholders expect boards to have the ability and authority to think and act independently from company executives or controlling owners. The board may be unable to serve effectively in its agency role if its directors’ judgements are not free of conflicts or any other external influence other than promoting the long-term success of the firm.
What are the problems related to independence?
It is important to recognise that independence has to be looked at in the context of how it affects board processes, decisions and overall governance. Yet spite of the inherent virtues of independence, its realisation in practice is not an easy fix; nor does it intrinsically enhance board effectiveness. A director must be able to contribute something other than independence alone, whether that is in the form of sector knowledge, commercial experience, international experience, technical skills or other areas that support the board’s oversight of company management.
Moreover, independence is ultimately a state of mind, not a product of definitions. There are many different sets of criteria that seek to define independence for individual directors. While these sorts of criteria can be useful, they can also be crude, misleading or incomplete.
The Lehman Brothers board in 2008, the year of its demise, was an example of a nominally independent board. But was this board able to operate independently of a strong Chair/CEO? Was there enough financial sector expertise amongst this group of independent directors to provide a rigorous challenge? (See Annex 1 in the complete publication).
Does independence ensure quality? What is the evidence?
Independence may be real, but it can be hard, if not impossible, to measure in a meaningful way. It is much easier to measure structural features of boards than it is to measure the quality of board processes. But sometimes what is easily measurable is not worth measuring. So while it is possible (and very common) to calculate simple ratios, such as independent directors/total directors a common gauge of board independence, they may not tell us much. Indeed, the evidence of empirical studies using simplistic/conventional measures of independence has been inconclusive (See Annex 2).
Many board attributes, including independence, which are regarded as “best practice” lack clear empirical grounding, at least in an econometric context. So, in many features of our corporate governance codes we are dealing in effect with opinions more than facts.
How to deal with insider influence and vested interests?
Insider influences can vary depending on the nature of the company. For widely-held companies, the vested interests of executive management often take the form of high pay for limited performance. In controlled companies vested interests may be the controlling owners themselves in terms of entrenchment and self-dealing.
Are independent directors really equipped to challenge these insiders? Or is that possibly asking for a bit too much? The empirical evidence cited above suggests that independent directors may not have a meaningful impact on board governance. But the evidence does suggest in the area of audit committees that independence is important. This makes logical sense, but it also suggests that for an independent director to provide meaningful oversight, independence must be combined with other important attributes, including sectoral knowledge and financial expertise. Independence as a determinant of board effectiveness therefore may be a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition.
Conclusion
We need to recognise that independence may be overrated, or at least not always live up to its billing. At least as it is conventionally defined, independence has not proven to be a panacea or silver bullet to ensure good corporate governance. At the same time, however, the concept of board independence is important and worth preserving, if nothing else as an aspirational ideal.
Discussion Results
Independent directors seem to be an intuitive solution for the agency problem stemming from the separation of ownership and control, but also for limiting the power of controlling shareholders in a corporation.
The starting point of the discussion was: Why do we need independence in the first place? As investors and other stakeholders want to see their interests served and protected by the board, the absence of potential conflicts of interest between non-executive directors and managers or undue influence from a major shareholder are the answers. Disclosure of meaningful ties of the non-executive directors to the management or controlling shareholders is important. The discussion also emphasized that reasonable diversity can be a contributing factor for board independence, and that truly independent board members can play a key role in avoiding too much convergence in decision making, as well as in focusing on the well-being of the company itself, and not any separate vested interests. While the discussion highlighted many benefits of board independence, it also pointed to potential costs: board independence may come with costs relating to problems in information flows, access to information and processing. Thus, it is important to complement board independence with proper board procedures and processes.
A key point of the discussion was the definition of independence itself. Besides the obligatory disclosure of relevant ties of a non-executive board member to management or controlling shareholders, regulators tried to formalize criteria to define independent board members. Academic literature also strives to evaluate how predefined criteria affect company decisions. However, results of these efforts are mixed and can hardly achieve “true” independence. The description of certain characteristics could introduce independence on paper, but may not reflect correctly the individual case of a board member. A predefined strict categorization would in practice suffer from a “ticking the box” approach. Independence from a controlling shareholder is equally hard to define as thresholds for shareholdings may not reflect the individual circumstances. The discussion also highlighted that strict definitions of independence might also require companies to replace experienced board members with new independent board members. That could lead to a temporary loss of experience and industry expertise.
Ways for the Future:
The realistic description of board independence needs a detailed assessment of the individual and a disclosure of ties of a non-executive board member to the management or controlling shareholders. Furthermore, disclosure of the selection process of the nomination committee should bring important insights for investors and the stakeholders.
The discussion further emphasized that formal characteristics alone could be misleading to determine the independence of a board member, focusing on “independence in mind” as an important aspect. As this factor is difficult to gauge or measure, investors may have to communicate with the chair in individual cases.
A sensible and company specific skillset of personnel management, industry knowledge and experience must be represented in the board as a priority, as formal independence alone is not a sufficient prerequisite for the selection process. The discussion emphasized that extensive information is key to allow proper evaluation of true independence. This should be complemented by sufficient access to the chair for communication with investors. The latest German code revision emphasizes that chairs make themselves available to investors for such supervisory board related issues.
Ways for the Future:
Full disclosure of important ties between individual board members with management and controlling shareholders should be obligatory. To properly evaluate the board member proposals, the disclosure of the skillsets of board members and the selection process would bring further important insights for investors. An idea proposed to support the process was the development of a “board skills matrix” for individual boards.
The discussion highlighted the key role of the nomination committee in the identificatio n and evaluation of independent directors. It was therefore suggested that the chair of the nomination committee should make himself available to investors. This point was controversially discussed due to possible loss of a “One Voice” communication strategy, so that communication should be confined to the chair of the supervisory board.
Another important point of the discussion was the regular evaluation of non-executive board members, as this may bring improvements for independent guidance and decision making of the full board. It could also identify areas of strength and weaknesses for an improved performance of both boards. A key prerequisite for a successful evaluation is the independence of the conducting leader.
The discussants raised the issue of the differences emerging from national governance environments, such as different shareholder structures and cultural differences. While the Anglo American approach to independence appears to work in the UK, this differs from continental European countries such as Germany and France.
Ways for the Future:
A solution to cross-country differences is the development of “local optima” that reflect the special circumstances in each country, rather from pursuing a “one fits all” approach.
Conclusion
The participants concluded that board independence remains a central issue in the corporate governance debate. The discussion identified definition issues as critical. It was also highlighted that full disclosure of the individual independence is important. Formal independence alone does not ensure board or director effectiveness. It must be accompanied with skills, knowledge and experience to obtain satisfactory board work results. Disclosure on the individual board members’ selection process and independence characteristics should be made available to investors and the other stakeholders.
*Christian Strengeris Academic Director at the Center for Corporate Governance at HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management. This post is based on a publication by Mr. Strenger and Jörg Rochell, President and Managing Director at ESMT Berlin, for a symposium held in Berlin on November 9, 2017, sponsored by ESMT Berlin and the Center for Corporate Governance at HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management.
Voici un article très intéressant qui présente une vision différente de la gouvernance à l’« Américaine ».
Les auteurs XAVIER HOLLANDTS et BERTRAND VALIORGUE sont enseignants-chercheurs en stratégie et gouvernance des entreprises. L’article vient de paraître sur le site LesEchos.fr.
Le projet français de loi « Pacte » a pour objectif de repenser les grandes notions de gouvernance, notamment la place de la participation des salariés à titre d’administrateur à part entière.
L’article examine trois idées reçues qu’il est important de bien élucider :
(1) la participation permet d’équilibrer le rapport capital/travail
(2) la participation améliore le dialogue social
(3) la participation améliore la performance
Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
Voilà de quelle manière les auteurs concluent leur article :
Compte tenu de ces éléments, faut-il promouvoir la participation des salariés à la gouvernance des entreprises ? Oui car l’accroissement de cette participation nous semble nécessaire pour deux raisons. L’arrivée d’administrateurs élus par les salariés au sein des conseils d’administration va permettre de recentrer les discussions sur l’entreprise, son projet stratégique, les investissements de long terme et son apport au progrès social et environnemental. Cette arrivée va redonner tout leur sens et prérogatives aux conseils d’administration.
La participation des salariés à la gouvernance va en outre apporter des éclairages et des moyens nouveaux pour gérer l’actif clé de la performance des entreprises : le capital humain. Les administrateurs salariés vont aider les dirigeants à mieux prendre en compte et développer cet actif qui est facteur majeur de compétitivité, d’innovation et de performance durable. On objectera alors que d’autres parties prenantes jouent aussi un rôle clé dans le processus de création de valeur et que leur présence au sein des conseils d’administration serait bienvenue. Ceux-là n’auraient pas tort.
Ma veille en gouvernance m’amène à vous proposer la lecture d’un article publié par Demi Derem* et Elizabeth Maiellano sur les défis posés par un ensemble de directives récemment approuvées par le Parlement européen et qui traitent du droit des actionnaires : « Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD) ».
La Commission Européenne (CE) veut que les entreprises cotées aient une meilleure connaissance de leurs investisseurs et qu’elles soient en mesure d’interagir d’une manière claire et transparente avec eux. Voici un extrait qui montre l’ampleur des nouvelles directives.
The SRD also grants shareholders the right to vote on companies’ remuneration policies, which may increase the policy analysis and assessment required by the buy-side. Similarly, the SRD requires that any material transaction (as defined by national regulators) between a listed company and a related third party must be announced and approved by the shareholders and the board.
Depending on national requirements, the announcement may also need to be accompanied by a report about the impact of the transaction from an independent third party, the board or a committee of independent directors.
La lecture de cet article montre que les entreprises ont peu de temps pour se conformer aux directives. Les auteurs explorent les impacts de l’adoption de ces règles sur les principaux intéressés, notamment sur les investisseurs institutionnels et les firmes d’intermédiation.
All parties in the shareholder communication chain need to prepare for the enhanced requirements of the new Shareholder Rights Directive—and try to influence its local implementation to encourage a harmonised approach.
The new Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD), adopted by the European Council and approved by the European Parliament this spring, is a laudable initiative intended to encourage shareholder engagement in listed companies in Europe and improve the transparency of related processes— including proxy voting. The European Commission (EC) wants to see proof that companies understand their investors and communicate with them in a clear and transparent manner.
The new SRD updates its 2007 predecessor and introduces some new requirements related to remunerating directors, identifying shareholders, facilitating the exercise of shareholder rights, transmitting information and providing transparency for institutional investors, asset managers and proxy advisors. The majority of the SRD is required to be translated into national law by European member states by June 2019 (although some elements will not come into force until September 2020).
Given the complexities introduced by the new SRD, firms across the shareholder communication chain need to begin preparing now if they are to meet its requirements by 2019. These are expected to entail significant and potentially costly changes relating to process reforms and transparency requirements, impacting issuers, asset managers, custodians, central securities depositories (CSDs), and a range of other intermediaries and service providers.
The two-year member-state transposition process will involve adaptation of the SRD’s requirements to reflect domestic market structures and local legal processes. We encourage all affected firms to engage with the EC and national regulators, and share their views on how the SRD should be implemented. This is vital for achieving outcomes that are equitable and commensurate with the corporate governance benefits of the SRD. If national regulators opt for significantly different interpretations of the SRD, this would be challenging for industry participants.
For example, one global custodian has expressed concern about the risk of national divergence requiring compliance efforts to be tailored to each regulator’s interpretation, thereby increasing the complexity and cost of SRD implementation for firms operating in more than one market.
Another securities services firm believes that discrepancies in implementation dates in different jurisdictions will be problematic for global firms.
Institutional investor impact
Institutional investors and asset managers are likely to be affected by the SRD in a number of ways. For example, both will have to be more transparent about their engagement with investee companies and how they integrate shareholder engagement into their investment strategy. Under the SRD this information must be reported annually and made available on buy-side firms’ websites. These firms must also disclose annually their voting behaviour and explain significant votes and their use of proxy advisor services. The SRD introduces these requirements on a comply-or-explain basis.
The SRD also grants shareholders the right to vote on companies’ remuneration policies, which may increase the policy analysis and assessment required by the buy-side. Similarly, the SRD requires that any material transaction (as defined by national regulators) between a listed company and a related third party must be announced and approved by the shareholders and the board. Depending on national requirements, the announcement may also need to be accompanied by a report about the impact of the transaction from an independent third party, the board or a committee of independent directors.
These new requirements will result in the production of more data and more reporting before a vote, potentially creating a significant burden on asset managers and investors as they try to manage this information flow. This burden is likely to be particularly noticeable with related party transactions.
Intermediary implications
Intermediary firms will need to keep a close watch on national requirements for the adoption of specific identification standards and data items for shareholder transparency requirements. For instance, markets could set different minimum levels of holdings that must be disclosed.
In addition, the SRD refers to providing data in a standardised format but does not specify the standards, so these may be provided by the EC. However, if the disclosure of certain data items would breach some countries’ data privacy laws, national regulators would have to alter the local requirements.
Another change introduced by the SRD is that intermediaries will have to store shareholder information for at least 12 months after they become aware that someone has ceased to be a shareholder. Data storage and retention requirements are therefore likely to increase.
A particular concern for intermediaries is that the SRD requires them to transmit general meeting agenda and voting information “without delay”. National regulators could interpret this as a requirement for real-time or near-real-time reporting. If this means that vote information has to be transmitted immediately, intermediaries will need to introduce intraday processing support. Meanwhile, the need to use a standardised format could result in amendments to current SWIFT message formats, with associated costs. It is also likely that the volume of voting instructions and amendments will increase after implementation of the SRD.
One custodian has expressed concern about the lack of regulatory clarity on whether post-meeting announcements will also have to be transmitted immediately. The EC and national regulators will need to confirm the level of information that must be passed on to shareholders. Some intermediaries may face operational headaches if their current processes can support the transmission of voting information but not of other data items in the same standardised and immediate manner.
Intermediaries could face the brunt of the costs of SRD implementation, particularly because European member states can prohibit intermediaries from charging fees for the cost of changes related to disclosure. If regulators decide to mandate this, intermediaries will have to absorb all compliance costs rather than passing a percentage on to clients.
If regulators are more lenient, intermediaries may be able to pass on certain costs, but the SRD specifies that these must be proven to be proportionate to the cost of offering the service. Intermediaries could therefore have to pay for the full cost of transparency requirements in some jurisdictions, while providing an audit trail of operational costs (and facing questions about any inefficiencies) in others.
The bundling of proxy costs into custody fees may also need re-evaluating, because intermediaries will need to disclose their fees in relation to proxy services. The SRD stresses the need for “non-discriminatory and proportionate” fees and jurisdictions will also have the power to prohibit fees for proxy services. If some do prohibit fees, firms’ business models will need to be revised.
Widespread impact
Issuers and registrars will also be affected by the SRD in relation to the standardisation of meeting announcements and the provision of vote confirmation. And proxy service providers will be impacted, although global firms that already comply with some jurisdictions’ voluntary requirements in transparency and reporting will feel less short-term impact. They could face both opportunities and challenges—with the potential to deliver new services to help intermediaries to support requirements such as vote confirmation, but needing to invest to do so.
The SRD’s transposition period presents market participants with an opportunity to review the impact on their operations, engage with regulators and assess their readiness. It is something that the industry should embrace and collaborate on to get right.
___________________________________________
*Demi Derem is general manager for Investor Communication Solutions, International, at Broadridge, and Elizabeth Maiellano is vice president for product management, Investor Communication Solutions, International, at Broadridge. This article has been prepared in collaboration with Broadridge, a supporter of Board Agenda.
Aujourd’hui, je vous propose mon point de vue en lien avec l’article de Jean-François Thuot*, intitulé « Les principes de saine gouvernance (PSG) sont-ils valables et applicables à toutes les organisations ? », paru sur le site de l’Ordre des administrateurs agréés du Québec (OAAQ) ainsi que sur le site de LinkedIn.
L’auteur met principalement l’accent sur deux principes de gouvernance généralement reconnus (PGGR) qui ne s’appliquent pas très bien à certains types d’organisations telles les OBNL, les ordres professionnels et les nombreuses variantes d’associations. J’ajouterais à la liste de Jean-François les sociétés d’État, les petites entreprises (PME), les entreprises en démarrage (start-up) et les entreprises à contrôle familial.
Voici les deux éléments qui posent problème dans l’application des PGGR :
(1) les personnes élues par les membres de différentes régions et qui sont, de facto, administrateurs de l’organisation ;
(2) les modalités de l’utilisation d’un comité exécutif.
Il s’agit d’excellents questionnements et j’y suis fréquemment confronté !
À mon avis, aucune organisation ne peut se conformer aux PGGR, et c’est bien normal ! Mais, ces entités peuvent se rapprocher de ce modèle perfectible comme l’auteur le dit si bien lorsqu’il mentionne que les OBNL « gagneraient à se doter de solides conditions d’éligibilité à un poste d’administrateur, faisant une large part à la dimension de compétence ».
Également, l’auteur touche un point déterminant lorsqu’il questionne la quasi-nécessité, pour plusieurs organisations, de se doter d’un comité exécutif (CE).
À mon avis, le CE doit être créé dans tous les types d’organisations, même s’il n’est pas toujours utilisé ou actif.
Comme mentionné, le comité exécutif est malheureusement nécessaire dans les cas où les conseils d’administration sont de grandes tailles. Il n’est généralement pas utile, ou nécessaire, lorsque le CA est d’environ 8-10 personnes et que celui-ci se réunit au moins 5 fois par an.
Le CE est nécessaire s’il y a des décisions urgentes à prendre à court terme. Mais, de nos jours, les membres du CA sont facilement joignables et ils peuvent décider rapidement. De plus, les autres comités statutaires du conseil sont davantage sollicités dans leur sphère de compétence.
Les raisons que l’auteur évoque eu égard à l’inutilité d’un CE qui se réunit régulièrement (à tous les mois, par exemple) sont, à mon avis, toujours très valables : déresponsabilisation du CA et de ses administrateurs, concentration du pouvoir entre les mains d’un cercle d’initiés, perception que les CA de petite taille sont plus efficaces.
Je suis tout à fait d’accord avec la conclusion de l’auteur.
Ces deux exemples invitent à bien mesurer le contexte organisationnel dans lequel les PSG sont destinés à être appliqués. Il existe une diversité des modèles de gouvernance, ce que la vogue actuelle des PSG tend à nous faire oublier. Il faut espérer que la réflexion se développe pour mieux saisir les particularités des OBNL, des associations et des ordres professionnels, afin de donner les réponses appropriées aux défis qui les caractérisent en matière de gouvernance.
Je vous encourage à lire l’article de Jean-François, ci-dessous, qui s’interroge sur ces deux grandes difficultés dans l’application des règles de bonne gouvernance.
Largement issus des organisations privées à visée lucrative, les principes de saine gouvernance (PSG) ont été mis à l’honneur ces dernières années et leur légitimité est telle qu’il est généralement admis qu’on peut les exporter vers n’importe quelle organisation.
En grattant un peu toutefois, les limites de certains de ces principes finissent par apparaitre. J’aimerais ici donner deux exemples.
…
*Jean-François Thuot, PhD, ASC, AdmA, conseiller, facilitateur stratégique pour OBNL et ordres professionnels: management associatif, affaires publiques, rédaction stratégique, formation.
Vous souhaitez en savoir davantage sur les tendances en ce qui concerne les actions à droits de vote multiples dans le contexte des É.-U. L’article* ci-dessous, publié sur le forum du Harvard Law School, fait le point sur ce sujet.
Comme vous le constaterez, les avis sont assez partagés sur les pratiques d’émission d’actions qui imposent des droits de vote différents selon les classes. Certaines compagnies, dont Snap inc., ont poussé un peu plus loin la logique des classes d’actions en proposant une catégorie d’action sans droit de vote.
Les compagnies qui ont osé offrir cette classe d’action ont connu des chutes de prix après l’offre publique d’achat (OPA). Cependant, cela n’a pas découragé d’autres entreprises de la Silicon Valley de faire des offres d’actions à droits de vote multiples. À cet égard, je vous renvoie à mon article du 17 mai 2017 intitulé « La gouvernance des entreprises à droit de vote multiple ».
Certaines bourses, dont la S&P Dow Jones, bannissent l’inscription de compagnies ayant ce type de structure, alors que d’autres, telles que le NYSE et le NASDAQ, sont beaucoup plus libérales…
Les deux plus grandes firmes de conseil en votation, ISS et Glass Lewis, ont de sérieuses réserves concernant ce type de structure de capital.
On sait qu’au Québec, cette structure d’actionnariat est assez répandue, et même encouragée.
À la lumière des tendances présentées dans l’article, quel est l’avenir de cette approche à l’émission d’actions ?
Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
This past year has been marked by significant and, in some cases, opposing attitudes and practices with respect to multi-class share structures. We are likely to see some of this churn continue in 2018 as the various market participants continue to define or refine their positions on this issue.
In 2016, a coalition of investors and pension funds lobbied against multi-class structures and, in 2017, the Council for Institutional Investors (CII) was vocal about its view that one vote per share is central to good governance. This movement is largely in connection with a minority trend of multi-class high-vote/low-vote and, sometimes, no-vote equity structures. In the spring of 2017, the initial public offering (IPO) of Snap Inc. put significant pressure on the issue when Snap offered its no-vote common stock to the public, followed shortly by Blue Apron’s IPO, which sold a class of low-vote stock to the public, while its capital structure also has a class of non-voting stock. Both companies suffered significant stock price drops following their IPOs.
In response to growing market pressure, in summer 2017, the S&P Dow Jones banned companies with multiple share class structures from inclusion in several of its indices (while nonetheless allowing for the grandfathering of companies that are already included in the index), the FTSE Russell announced it would begin excluding from its indices those companies without publicly-held voting stock representing at least five percent of a company’s voting rights and, in November, MSCI announced its review of unequal voting structures and its decision to temporarily treat any securities of companies with unequal voting structures as ineligible for certain of its indices.
In addition, proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass Lewis piled on with the recent release of policies that result in their recommending voting against board and/or committee members at companies with dual-class structures, depending on other governance factors. Furthermore, Glass Lewis’ 2018 voting policies indicate that for companies with disproportionate voting and economic rights, it will carefully examine the voting turnout on proposals and if a majority of low-vote shareholders support a shareholder proposal or oppose a management proposal, Glass Lewis believes the board should demonstrate appropriate responsiveness to this voting outcome.
Despite this pressure, many companies, so far at least, seem undeterred in their pursuits of going public with a multi-class structure as a way of preserving founder or early investor control, in part in an attempt to combat the trend in increasing short-term, activist and other shareholder demands. Significant IPOs with dual-class stock occurred in the latter half of the year—after the indices’ ban—including Roku, CarGuus, StitchFix, Sogou and Qudian.
Importantly, NYSE and NASDAQ continue to permit, and even actively court, multi-class companies for listing. And momentum may be increasing internationally as well. After failing to attract the 2014 Alibaba IPO, the Hong Kong Exchange recognized its struggle to capture market-share for new technology companies with untraditional capital structures and issued a proposal to permit companies with multi-class structures to list IPOs on a new listing board. More recently, the Hong Kong government signaled its willingness to amending existing rules to permit multi-class companies to list under the status quo.
So far, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has largely side-stepped the issue in its regulatory agenda. In the fall U.S. Department of the Treasury report, the Treasury reiterated that corporate governance and shareholder rights are a matter of state law and recommended that the SEC’s role continue to be limited to reviewing the adequacy of disclosure and effects on shareholder voting for companies with dual-class stocks.
It may be premature to know the impact that the ban by many of the indices will have on the desire for companies to go public with multi-class structures. After all, many IPO companies are not eligible for immediate inclusion in any index (and each index has its own set of requirements). For instance, the S&P 500 has requirements on the length of public company trading (12 months), market capitalization ($6.1 billion) public float (50 percent of the class of stock) and performance (the sum of the four most recent consecutive quarters’ earnings must be positive), that make it impossible for a newly-public company to be listed inside a year and, for some companies, a significant number of years post-IPO.
The strength of the indices’ ban will be tested when a recently-public multi-class company achieves significant growth and would otherwise be eligible to be included in an index. Will some of the largest index-based funds, which may conceptually prefer equal voting rights for all shareholders, be satisfied with being left out of a company’s shareholder base because the company’s multi-class structure otherwise precludes it from being included in the index? According to an analysis conducted by State Street Global Advisors using data from FactSet, companies in the S&P 500 with multi-class stock structures outperformed their single-class counterparts by approximately 26 percent cumulatively over the 10-year period ending in 2016, and exclusion of those companies would have resulted in underperformance of the index by approximately 1.86 percent over the same period.
Already BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager and a signatory on the coalition of investors advocating for equal rights for all shareholders, has publicly bristled at the thought of limiting returns for its clients due to the ban and has publicly disagreed with it, stating that “policymakers, not index providers, should set equity investing and corporate governance standards” and that it would support shareholder review of a company’s capital structure periodically through management proposals in the company’s proxy statement. Depending on stock performance of the IPO class of 2017, the first potential test case could occur as early as 2018 and this will be a development to monitor throughout the year.
______________________________________
*Pamela Marcogliese is a partner and Elizabeth Bieber is an associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb publication by Ms. Marcogliese and Ms. Bieber. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Untenable Case for Perpetual Dual-Class Stock by Lucian Bebchuk and Kobi Kastiel (discussed on the Forum here).
Nous savons que le Dodd-Frank Act aux États-Unis oblige les entreprises publiques à publier le ratio indiquant la rémunération du CEO en comparaison avec la moyenne des salaires des employés.
L’obligation de publier ces ratios dans les rapports aux actionnaires commence cette année, et les entreprises doivent se préparer aux répercussions de cette divulgation.
L’article ci-dessous, publié par Joe Mallin, associé de la firme Pay Governance, paru sur le site du HLS Forum, met l’accent sur les impacts envisagés auprès des parties prenantes.
Quelles seront les retombées de la publication de ces statistiques tant redoutées ? C’est ce dont il est question dans ce court article.
Le graphique qui suit est assez révélateur d’un problème qui concerne les sociétés américaines et canadiennes !
Comment l’AMF réagira-t-elle à cette nouvelle donne ?
CEO = 184 x average worker pay – Canada CEO Pay – BayStreetEx
Key Takeaways
The CEO Pay Ratio will be published in 2018 proxy season.
As companies begin calculating their Ratios, it is also time to begin thinking about the timeframe immediately following the proxy statement publication and the possible reactions of key interested parties.
We suggest that companies determine how they want to respond to inquiries about the published CEO Pay Ratio and evaluate whether alternative Ratios should be calculated to provide appropriate context.
Companies will need to decide whether to be proactive or reactive to potential inquiries.
Interested Parties
A. The Media
We envision several likely outcomes as the media begins reporting on the CEO Pay Ratio. These include:
The local publication of tables comparing the CEO Pay Ratios of companies in specific geographies, such as large cities
Similar tables comparing companies across industries, likely by the national media
General conclusions between companies with higher versus lower Ratios (e.g., “high” = “bad”and “low” = “not as bad”)
We believe the tables published by both local and national media will include CEO pay, median employee pay, and the Ratio itself. Such tables will illustrate the fact that the CEO Pay Ratio consists of three parts, and the relationship among these components is key to understanding how employees may perceive its publication. This cross-company media comparison will be problematic: the SEC has stated it does not expect CEO Pay Ratios to be comparable across companies because of the variety of methodologies allowed for computing median employee pay. [1] This distinction is unlikely to make its way into media reports.
B. Employees
With the publication of the CEO Pay Ratio, employees will get a first glimpse into how their colleagues are paid, specifically the median pay of their colleagues. This will be a glimpse of just one number, but it will be a number they did not have access to before. As such, employees will be interested in two aspects of the CEO Pay Ratio:
Internal Comparisons to Median Pay—Employees will compare their own pay to the median employee’s pay. The obvious issue is that, by definition, half will be paid below the median; this could create a morale issue for those employees. Likewise, employees paid above the median could feel the same way if their pay is closer to the median than they had expected. Finally, the methodology used to calculate this median could complicate personal comparisons or cause other issues if the value of benefits are combined with direct compensation.
External Comparisons to Median Pay—Cross-company comparisons of median employee pay will be made. This will be especially prevalent among employees in the same geographic area and industry. Such comparisons could give the impression that a competitor pays more than one’s own company, and this could prompt employees to seek out a higher-paying competitor. This could become a key issue for companies in similar industries and regions, such as Silicon Valley. Will there be a competition to see who has the highest median employee pay? What would the recruiting implications be?
Overall, employees will likely pay more attention to the CEO Pay Ratio’s median employee pay aspect than to the CEO pay itself: CEO pay has been published for many years and should not be a surprise to employees. In addition, company employees may perceive the Ratio as a rather abstract number and have only mild interest in cross-company comparisons.
C. Investors
Early assumptions had been that investors were relatively uninterested in CEO Pay Ratio outcomes. This is due to the assumption the Ratio does not reveal information about the operations and future investment potential of a given company. However, a recent Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) policy survey [2] indicates:
Only 16% of investors polled (primarily institutional investors) indicated they would not evaluate the CEO Pay Ratio as part of their investment evaluations.
The remaining investors indicated they would either:
Compare Ratios across companies and industries, or
Assess year-over-year changes in the Ratio for individual companies.
The key conclusion is that investors will look for Ratio differences across both companies and time, but any Ratio differences/changes in and of themselves will not likely be enough to change investment decisions. Such information will likely be considered in conjunction with other available information. At the same time, investors may inquire about what they perceive to be “high” Ratios and companies should be prepared for such inquiries.
Addressing Potential Issues
Most companies should be prepared to respond to questions related to the CEO Pay Ratio’s publication. Companies with what are perceived to be “low” ratios will get fewer inquiries, but should be prepared in any case. Responses to investor and media questions could be covered together, as we think they will be similar in nature.
Employee questions will be somewhat different, as they will be more focused on the median employee pay rather than the CEO Pay Ratio itself.
For example, companies may consider publishing multiple “supplemental” CEO Pay Ratios intended to provide context for media, investor and employee perceptions. For example, a significant number of relatively lower-paid, international, part-time, and/or seasonal employees would lower the median employee pay. Ratios will also likely vary significantly by industry: professional services firms with “high” median employee pay will generally have lower Ratios, and those with “low” median employee pay will have higher Ratios.
The supplemental calculations could take the form of Ratios based on:
Domestic employees only—for companies with significant employment in international locations
Salaried employees only—for companies with many lower-paid, non-salaried employees
Full-time employees only—for companies who employ many part-time employees
We believe these additional calculations may provide beneficial insight into the CEO Pay Ratio for employees, investors, and the media. In each case, the supplemental calculations will result in a lower Ratio along with insight into the initial Ratio’s calculation.
Investor/media relation functions should develop talking points to respond to inquiries, especially if their company’s initial CEO Pay Ratio may be perceived as “high”. The likelihood of media inquiries and the need for talking points is less likely among those companies whose CEO Pay Ratio may be perceived as “low”. This is particularly true concerning the media, whose sole focus will be on “high” CEO Pay Ratios. Prepared talking points can also form the basis for responding to employee issues; there should be a sense of cohesion across all responses to the various interested parties.
A key issue will be whether a company should be proactive or reactive to employee questions. Again, the initial CEO Pay Ratio may hold the answer: it may be appropriate to be proactive for a Ratio which may be perceived as “high” and reactive for one that may be perceived as “low”. However, individual Company facts and circumstances should influence this decision.
Conclusions
In general, the publication of CEO Pay Ratios for the first time will be prominently noted by the business media. It remains to be seen whether it will have its “fifteen minutes of fame,” or if it will face lingering scrutiny. However, the CEO Pay Ratio will likely become another aspect of the ongoing societal debate around income inequality and wealth concentration, which is not easily resolved either in this country or around the world.
In any case, we believe companies should begin developing appropriate responses to likely CEO Pay Ratio questions from their employees, investors and the media. Companies are currently in a period when the Ratios are being calculated, and now is the time to begin planning for publication and its after-effects. Be like the Boy Scouts: Be Prepared!
______________________________________
Endnotes
1“Division of Corporation Finance Guidance on Calculation of Pay Ratio Disclosure.” The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. September 21, 2017.(go back)
2“Contextualizing CEO Pay Ratio Disclosure.” ISS Corporate Solutions Governance Insights. October 6, 2017.(go back)
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 