Les dix (10) plus importantes activités pour une gouvernance efficace *

Vous trouverez ci-dessous un checklist qui vous sera utile pour effectuer une révision de vos processus de gouvernance.

Bonne lecture. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.

Top Ten Steps to Improving Corporate Governance :

1.      Recognise that good governance is not just about compliance

Boards need to balance conformance (i.e. compliance with legislation, regulation and codes of practice) with performance aspects of the board’s work (i.e. improving the performance of the organisation through strategy formulation and policy making). As a part of this process, a board needs to elaborate its position and understanding of the major functions it performs as opposed to those performed by management. These specifics will vary from board to board. Knowing the role of the board and who does what in relation to governance goes a long way towards maintaining a good relationship between the board and management.

2.      Clarify the board’s role in strategy

It is generally accepted today that the board has a significant role to play in the formulation and adoption of the organisation’s strategic direction. The extent of the board’s contribution to strategy will range from approval at one end to development at the other. Each board must determine what role is appropriate for it to undertake and clarify this understanding with management.

3.      Monitor organisational performance

Monitoring organisational performance is an essential board function and ensuring legal compliance is a major aspect of the board’s monitoring role. It ensures that corporate decision making is consistent with the strategy of the organisation and with owners’ expectations. This is best done by identifying the organisation’s key performance drivers and establishing appropriate measures for determining success. As a board, the directors should establish an agreed format for the reports they monitor to ensure that all matters that should be reported are in fact reported.

4.      Understand that the board employs the CEO

In most cases, one of the major functions of the board is to appoint, review, work through, and replace (when necessary), the CEO. The board/CEO relationship is crucial to effective corporate governance because it is the link between the board’s role in determining the organisation’s strategic direction and management’s role in achieving corporate objectives.

5.      Recognise that the governance of risk is a board responsibility

Establishing a sound system of risk oversight and management and internal control is another fundamental role of the board. Effective risk management supports better decision making because it develops a deeper insight into the risk-reward trade-offs that all organisations face.

6.      Ensure the directors have the information they need

Better information means better decisions. Regular board papers will provide directors with information that the CEO or management team has decided they need. But directors do not all have the same informational requirements, since they differ in their knowledge, skills, and experience. Briefings, presentations, site visits, individual director development programs, and so on can all provide directors with additional information. Above all, directors need to be able to find answers to the questions they have, so an access to independent professional advice policy is recommended.

7.      Build and maintain an effective governance infrastructure

Since the board is ultimately responsible for all the actions and decisions of an organisation, it will need to have in place specific policies to guide organisational behaviour. To ensure that the line of responsibility between board and management is clearly delineated, it is particularly important for the board to develop policies in relation to delegations. Also, under this topic are processes and procedures. Poor internal processes and procedures can lead to inadequate access to information, poor communication and uninformed decision making, resulting in a high level of dissatisfaction among directors. Enhancements to board meeting processes, meeting agendas, board papers and the board’s committee structure can often make the difference between a mediocre board and a high performing board.

8.      Appoint a competent chairperson

Research has shown that board structure and formal governance regulations are less important in preventing governance breaches and corporate wrongdoing than the culture and trust created by the chairperson. As the “leader” of the board, the chairperson should demonstrate strong and acknowledged leadership ability, the ability to establish a sound relationship with the CEO, and have the capacity to conduct meetings and lead group decision-making processes.

9.      Build a skills-based board

What is important for a board is that it has a good understanding of what skills it has and those skills it requires. Where possible, a board should seek to ensure that its members represent an appropriate balance between directors with experience and knowledge of the organisation and directors with specialist expertise or fresh perspective. Directors should also be considered on the additional qualities they possess, their “behavioural competencies”, as these qualities will influence the relationships around the boardroom table, between the board and management, and between directors and key stakeholders.

10.     Evaluate board and director performance and pursue opportunities for improvement

Boards must be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses, if they are to govern effectively. Board effectiveness can only be gauged if the board regularly assesses its own performance and that of individual directors. Improvements to come from a board and director evaluation can include areas as diverse as board processes, director skills, competencies and motivation, or even boardroom relationships. It is critical that any agreed actions that come out of an evaluation are implemented and monitored. Boards should consider addressing weaknesses uncovered in board evaluations through director development programs and enhancing their governance processes.

Voir le site www.effectivegovernance.com.au

________________________________________

* En reprise

Il faut changer notre mentalité à propos de l’évaluation des OBNL ! **

Aujourd’hui, je vous propose le visionnement d’une vidéo extraordinaire à propos de la conception que l’on se fait de l’efficacité des OBNL, en particulier des organisations caritatives. La plupart des administrateurs de sociétés sont membres d’OBNL ou sont engagés dans la gestion de ce type d’organisation. C’est pourquoi cette vidéo réalisée par Dan Pallotta* sur TED devrait vous intéresser.

L’auteur avance qu’il existe deux ensembles de règles de gestion, l’une pour les entreprises privées et l’une pour les OBNL. Compte tenu des besoins de gestion et des règles de fonctionnement de tout système organisationnel, il ne devrait pas y avoir deux poids, deux mesures dans l’évaluation des OBNL.

Les deux types d’organisations sont soumis aux mêmes impératifs de gestion et les conseils d’administration ont les mêmes responsabilités de supervision du management et d’orientation de l’organisation.

Selon Pallotta, trop d’OBNL sont valorisées lorsqu’elles dépensent peu (même si cette frugalité se fait au détriment de la croissance de l’organisation), c’est-à-dire lorsque les frais administratifs sont limités au minimum, parce que ceux-ci ne contribuent pas à la cause !

TED2013_0072528_D41_4986 (Photo credit: TED Conference)

La vidéo met l’accent sur les problématiques liées :

(1) à la rémunération des gestionnaires lesquels doivent souvent agir bénévolement,

(2) aux dépenses de publicité et de marketing qui sont considérées comme des frais administratifs relativement « superflus »,

(3) aux prises de risques insuffisantes pour créer de nouvelles idées et générer de nouveaux revenus,

(4) à la sous-estimation du temps requis pour obtenir des résultats à long terme et

(5) au manque de considération accordé à la réalisation de surplus pour assurer la pérennité de l’organisation et attirer le capital de risque.

Je vous invite à visionner cette vidéo et à partager vos expériences et vos commentaires sur la gestion des OBNL.

The way we think about charity is dead wrong | Dan Pallotta

Activist and fundraiser Dan Pallotta calls out the double standard that drives our broken relationship to charities. Too many nonprofits, he says, are rewarded for how little they spend — not for what they get done. Instead of equating frugality with morality, he asks us to start rewarding charities for their big goals and big accomplishments (even if that comes with big expenses). In this bold talk, he says: Let’s change the way we think about changing the world.

TED2013_0072492_D41_4950 (Photo credit: TED Conference)

Everything the donating public has been taught about giving is dysfunctional, says AIDS Ride founder Dan Pallotta. He aims to transform the way society thinks about charity and giving and change.

_____________________________________

* Dan Pallotta is best known for creating the multi-day charitable event industry, and a new generation of citizen philanthropists with the AIDS Rides and Breast Cancer 3-Day events, which raised $582 million in nine years. He is president of Advertising for Humanity, which helps foundations and philanthropists transform the growth potential of their favorite grantees.

** En reprise

La bonne gouvernance selon Munger, vice-président du C.A. de Berkshire *

Aujourd’hui, je vous propose une très intéressante lecture publiée par David F. Larcker et Brian Tayan, de la Stanford Graduate School of Business qui porte sur la conception que se fait Charles Munger de la bonne gouvernance des sociétés.

Les auteurs nous proposent de répondre à trois questions relatives à la position de Munger, vice-président du conseil de Berkshire :

1. Le système de gouvernance basé sur la confiance avancé par Munger pourrait-il s’appliquer à différents types d’organisations ?

2. Quelles pratiques de gouvernance sont-elles nécessaires et quelles pratiques sont-elles superflues ?

3. Comment s’assurer que la culture organisationnelle survivra à un processus de succession du PCD ?

À la suite de la lecture de l’article ci-dessous, quelles seraient vos réponses à ces questions.

Voici un résumé de la pensée de Munger, suivi d’un court extrait. Bonne lecture !

Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chairman Charlie Munger is well known as the partner of CEO Warren Buffett and also for his advocacy of “multi-disciplinary thinking” — the application of fundamental concepts from across various academic disciplines to solve complex real-world problems. One problem that Munger has addressed over the years is the optimal system of corporate governance.

Munger advocates that corporate governance systems become more simple, rather than more complex, and rely on trust rather than compliance to instill ethical behavior in employees and executives. He advocates giving more power to a highly capable and ethical CEO, and taking several steps to improve the culture of the organization to reduce the risk of self-interested behavior.

Corporate Governance According to Charles T. Munger

How should an organization be structured to encourage ethical behavior among organizational participants and motivate decision-making in the best interest of shareholders? His solution is unconventional by the standards of governance today and somewhat at odds with regulatory guidelines. However, the insights that Munger provides represent a contrast to current “best practices” and suggest the potential for alternative solutions to improve corporate performance and executive behavior.

Trust-Based Governance

The need for a governance system is based on the premise that individuals working in a firm are selfinterested and therefore willing to take actions to further their own interest at the expense of the organization’s interests. To discourage this tendency, companies implement a series of carrots (incentives) and sticks (controls). The incentives might be monetary, such as performance-based compensation that aligns the financial interest of executives with shareholders. Or they might be or cultural, such as organizational norms that encourage certain behaviors. The controls include policies and procédures to limit malfeasance and oversight mechanisms to review executive decisions.

_______________________________

* En reprise

La bonne gouvernance selon Munger, vice-président du C.A. de Berkshire

Les auteurs nous proposent de répondre à trois questions relatives à la position de Munger, vice-président du conseil de Berkshire :

1. Le système de gouvernance basé sur la confiance avancé par Munger pourrait-il s’appliquer à différents types d’organisations ?

2. Quelles pratiques de gouvernance sont-elles nécessaires et quelles pratiques sont-elles superflues ?

3. Comment s’assurer que la culture organisationnelle survivra à un processus de succession du PCD ?

À la suite de la lecture de l’article ci-dessous, quelles seraient vos réponses à ces questions.

Voici un résumé de la pensée de Munger, suivi d’un court extrait. Bonne lecture !

Corporate Governance According to Charles T. Munger

How should an organization be structured to encourage ethical behavior among organizational participants and motivate decision-making in the best interest of shareholders? His solution is unconventional by the standards of governance today and somewhat at odds with regulatory guidelines. However, the insights that Munger provides represent a contrast to current “best practices” and suggest the potential for alternative solutions to improve corporate performance and executive behavior.

Trust-Based Governance

The need for a governance system is based on the premise that individuals working in a firm are selfinterested and therefore willing to take actions to further their own interest at the expense of the organization’s interests. To discourage this tendency, companies implement a series of carrots (incentives) and sticks (controls). The incentives might be monetary, such as performance-based compensation that aligns the financial interest of executives with shareholders. Or they might be or cultural, such as organizational norms that encourage certain behaviors. The controls include policies and procédures to limit malfeasance and oversight mechanisms to review executive decisions.

La disqualification des candidats administrateurs qui sont rétribués par les activistes | Carl Icahn

Un grand débat fait présentement rage dans le monde des actionnaires activistes : la dénonciation des amendements apportés aux règlements internes de l’entreprise (Bylaws) qui ont pour buts de disqualifier les candidats aux postes d’administrateurs qui sont rémunérés par les actionnaires activistes en vue de leur élection lors des assemblées annuelles.

L’article ci-joint, publié par Carl Icahn dans le Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, tente de justifier la façon de faire des activistes en montrant que cette approche est le nouveau moyen de défense utilisé par certaines organisations pour bloquer la venue de nouveaux administrateurs « dissidents ». L’adoption de cet amendement se fait sans le consentement des actionnaires.

Je vous propose donc la lecture de la position de M. Icahn lui-même sur cette question. Il présente un ensemble d’arguments soutenant le droit des actionnaires à une représentation qui relève d’eux, et non de la direction ou des administrateurs en place !

Quel est votre point de vue sur les moyens de défense utilisés par les organisations qui sont les cibles des actionnaires activistes organisés ? Voici un court extrait de l’article pour vous mettre en contexte.

Disqualifying Dissident Nominees: A New Trend in Incumbent Director Entrenchment

There are many good, independent boards of directors at public companies in the United States. Unfortunately, there are also many ineffectual boards composed of cronies of CEOs and management teams, and such boards routinely use corporate capital to hire high-priced “advisors” to design defense mechanisms, such as the staggered board and poison pill, that serve to insulate them from criticism. Recently, these advisors have created a particularly pernicious new mechanism to protect their deep-pocketed clients—a bylaw amendment (which we call the “Director Disqualification Bylaw”) that disqualifies certain people from seeking to replace incumbent members of a board of directors.

Under a Director Disqualification Bylaw, a person is not eligible for election to the board of directors if he is nominated by a shareholder and the shareholder has agreed to pay the nominee a fee, such as a cash payment to compensate the nominee for taking the time and effort to seek election in a proxy fight, or compensation that is tied to performance of the company. [1]

We believe that the Director Disqualification Bylaw is totally misguided. It is absolutely offensive for an incumbent board to unilaterally adopt a Director Disqualification Bylaw without shareholder approval, and shareholders should also reject a Director Disqualification Bylaw if their incumbent board puts one up for a vote in the future. For the reasons explained below, we believe it is more appropriate for shareholders to continue, as they have in the past, to evaluate candidates individually based on their merits, including their experience, relationships and interests, all of which is required to be fully disclosed in a proxy statement.

As of November 30, 2013, thirty-three (33) public companies had unilaterally (i.e. without shareholder approval) amended their bylaws to include a Director Disqualification Bylaw. [2] In response, on January 13, 2014, Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) stated that it may recommend a vote against or withhold from directors that adopt a Director Disqualification Bylaw without shareholder approval. In adopting this new policy position, ISS noted, as we do below, that “the ability to elect directors is a fundamental shareholder right” and that Director Disqualification Bylaws “unnecessarily infringe on this core franchise right.”

_________________________________

Carl Icahn is the majority shareholder of Icahn Enterprises. The following post is based on a commentary featured today at the Shareholders’ Square Table.

Document de KPMG sur les bonnes pratiques de constitution d’un Board | The Directors Toolkit

Voici un document australien de KPMG, très bien conçu, qui répond clairement aux questions que tous les administrateurs de sociétés se posent dans le cours de leurs mandats.

Même si la publication est dédiée à l’auditoire australien de KPMG, je crois que la réalité règlementaire nord-américaine est trop semblable pour se priver d’un bon « kit » d’outils qui peut aider à constituer un Board efficace. C’est un formidable document électronique de 130 pages, donc long à télécharger. Voyez la table des matières ci-dessous.

J’ai demandé à KPMG de me procurer une version française du même document mais il ne semble pas en exister. Bonne lecture en cette fin d’année 2013 et Joyeuses Fêtes à tous et à toutes.

The Directors Toolkit

Our business environment provides an ever-changing spectrum of risks and opportunities. The role of the director continues to be shaped by a multitude of forces including economic uncertainty, larger and more complex organisations, the increasing pace of technological innovation and digitisation along with a more rigorous regulatory environment.

At the same time there is more onus on directors to operate transparently and be more accountable for their actions and decisions.

To support directors in their challenging role KPMG has created The Directors’ Toolkit. This guide, in a user-friendly electronic format, empowers directors to more effectively discharge their duties and responsibilities while improving board performance and decision-making.

Key topics :

Duties and responsibilities of a director

Oversight of strategy and governance

Managing shareholder and stakeholder expectations

Structuring an effective board and sub-committees

Enabling key executive appointments

Managing productive meetings

Better practice terms of reference, charters and agendas

Establishing new boar

Article relié :

Le comité de gouvernance du C.A. | Élément clé d’une solide stratégie (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Le point sur la gouvernance au Canada | Rapport de Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg

Le rapport annuel de Davies est toujours très attendu car il brosse un tableau très complet de l’évolution de la gouvernance au Canada. De plus, c’est un document publié en français.

Je vous invite donc à en prendre connaissance en lisant le court résumé ci-dessous et, si vous voulez en savoir plus sur les thèmes abordés, vous pouvez télécharger le document sur le site de l’entreprise.

Cliquez sur le lien ci-dessous. Bonne lecture !

Le point sur la gouvernance au Canada | Rapport de Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg

Rapport de Davies sur la gouvernance 2013

Depuis la diversité au sein des conseils jusqu’aux risques liés aux marchés émergents, en passant par l’activisme actionnarial, cette troisième édition du Rapport de Davies sur la gouvernance, notre compte rendu annuel, analyse l’actualité sur de nombreuses questions d’intérêt pour les conseils d’administration et les observateurs du paysage de la gouvernance au Canada.

Dans le premier chapitre, Administrateurs et conseils d’administration, nous faisons le point sur l’évolution de la composition des conseils d’administration au Canada, les appels à la diversité au sein de ces conseils et des équipes de direction ainsi que les idées proposées par les autorités de réglementation et les investisseurs à cet égard. Dans le chapitre intitulé Rémunération des membres de la haute direction et des administrateurs, nous faisons état de la popularité grandissante du vote consultatif sur la rémunération de la haute direction et proposons des mesures que peuvent prendre les conseils d’administration pour éviter d’être pris de court par le résultat d’un tel vote. Dans le chapitre intitulé Questions relatives au vote des actionnaires, nous nous intéressons aux nouveautés concernant la question de l’intégrité du vote des actionnaires au Canada, les initiatives de réglementation des agences de conseil en vote et la pratique du vote à la majorité parmi les émetteurs. Dans le chapitre intitulé Initiatives des actionnaires, nous mettons en lumière les tendances et les questions d’actualité comme l’« achat de votes », la rémunération offerte aux administrateurs par les dissidents et le « vote vide » ainsi que les règlements de préavis. Dans le chapitre intitulé Surveillance des risques : les activités sur les marchés émergents, nous examinons comment les émetteurs gèrent les risques associés à leurs activités sur les marchés émergents ainsi que les nouveautés importantes touchant la législation et la mise en application de la loi en matière de lutte contre la corruption. Enfin, dans le chapitre intitulé Régimes de droits : gouvernance et changement de contrôle, nous analysons les deux cadres de réglementation des régimes de droits en situation de prise de contrôle proposés cette année par les autorités canadiennes en valeurs mobilières.

Pour consulter le sommaire, cliquez ici. Pour lire le document complet, cliquez ici.

Le Spencer Stuart U.S. Board Index 2013

À chaque année Spencer Stuart publie un rapport sur les données des Boards du S&P 500 et dégage certaines tendances pour le futur. La 28^e édition de cette publication annuelle, toujours très attendue, analyse la composition des conseils d’administration, les pratiques de gouvernance et la rémunération globale des administrateurs.

Les résultats de cette enquête, abondamment illustrés, sont présentés avec beaucoup de détails et d’analyses comparatives sur la base des 10 dernières années. Bien sûr, il est important de se rappeler que l’étude concerne la situation des grandes entreprises américaines.

Cependant, malgré certaines différences notables telle que la séparation des rôles de PCD et de PCA, la gouvernance des entreprises canadiennes a beaucoup de similitude avec la gouvernances des entreprises américaines. C’est pourquoi, je vous invite à lire le rapport, en attendant une version canadienne …

Voici un court extrait des résultats de 2013. Bonne lecture.

Spencer Stuart U.S. Board Index 2013 – Sommaire

Spencer Stuart U.S. Board Index 2013 – Copie du rapport

The average age of independent directors on S&P 500 boards has risen to 63 years from 60 a decade ago and in 2013, for the first time, nearly half of the 339 newly elected directors are retired.

More retired CEOs, COOs, presidents and chairs than active executives in those roles joined boards in the past year – 79 retired vs. 77 active.

Boards are raising mandatory retirement ages to allow experienced directors to serve longer; 88 percent of boards with a mandatory retirement age set it at 72 or older, versus 46 percent a decade ago. Nearly one-quarter have a retirement age of 75 or older versus 3 percent a decade ago.

91 percent of S&P 500 boards now have annual director elections.

53 percent of S&P 500 CEOs serve on no outside corporate boards.

38 percent of newly elected directors are serving on their first public company board.

More boards split the role of chair and CEO – 45 percent in 2013 compared to 23 percent a decade ago — but only 25 percent have a truly independent chair, a non-executive or a former executive director who over time has met the NYSE or NASDAQ independence standards.

Total average compensation rose 3 percent over the past year to $249,168. The average board retainer rose 6 percent to $102,507.

Corporate Boardrooms Are Older, Nearly Half of New Independent Directors are Retired Executives, According to Spencer Stuart Board Index (prnewswire.com)

Vous vous préparez à occuper un poste d’administrateur d’une entreprise ? (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Le comité de gouvernance du C.A. | Élément clé d’une solide stratégie (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Board Composition (venitism.blogspot.com)

Five Actions that the Best of the Best Board Members Do (pristineadvisers.wordpress.com)

Trends of Board Members (venitism.blogspot.com)

Le comité de gouvernance du C.A. | Élément clé d’une solide stratégie

Voici un article du Huffington Post qui présente les principales fonctions d’un comité de gouvernance. Bonne lecture !

The Governance Committee: A Key Element of a Successful Strategy

I am not a fan of having numerous standing board committees for arts organizations. I appreciate the need for a finance committee, a separate audit committee (the same people who approve the budget at the beginning of the year should not be responsible for auditing financial performance at year end), an executive committee (that can operate when the entire board is in recess), etc. But I prefer board members to spend time in the community, building support for the organization, rather than to sit in endless committee meetings.

But there is one committee that is crucial, and that is carelessly assembled all too often: the governance committee (sometimes called the nominating committee).

The governance committee has four central roles:

Determining what the composition of the board should be in the coming years
Evaluating the current board members to determine who is and who is not fulfilling their obligations to the organization
Creating and implementing a strategy for acquiring the board members needed to ensure that all of the requirements outlined by the ‘ideal board’ are met
Developing and implementing a succession plan for board leadership

Voir l’article www.huffingtonpost.com

Vous vous préparez à occuper un poste d’administrateur d’une entreprise ? (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Nominations do not Require Approval (edwardbrainblog.wordpress.com)

Les dix (10) plus importantes activités pour une gouvernance efficace

To ensure that your board is continually reviewing and enhancing its governance processes, this checklist will provide a good starting point.

Top Ten Steps to Improving Corporate Governance :

1.      Recognise that good governance is not just about compliance

Boards need to balance conformance (i.e. compliance with legislation, regulation and codes of practice) with performance aspects of the board’s work (i.e. improving the performance of the organisation through strategy formulation and policy making). As a part of this process, a board needs to elaborate its position and understanding of the major functions it performs as opposed to those performed by management. These specifics will vary from board to board. Knowing the role of the board and who does what in relation to governance goes a long way towards maintaining a good relationship between the board and management.

2.      Clarify the board’s role in strategy

It is generally accepted today that the board has a significant role to play in the formulation and adoption of the organisation’s strategic direction. The extent of the board’s contribution to strategy will range from approval at one end to development at the other. Each board must determine what role is appropriate for it to undertake and clarify this understanding with management.

3.      Monitor organisational performance

Monitoring organisational performance is an essential board function and ensuring legal compliance is a major aspect of the board’s monitoring role. It ensures that corporate decision making is consistent with the strategy of the organisation and with owners’ expectations. This is best done by identifying the organisation’s key performance drivers and establishing appropriate measures for determining success. As a board, the directors should establish an agreed format for the reports they monitor to ensure that all matters that should be reported are in fact reported.

4.      Understand that the board employs the CEO

In most cases, one of the major functions of the board is to appoint, review, work through, and replace (when necessary), the CEO. The board/CEO relationship is crucial to effective corporate governance because it is the link between the board’s role in determining the organisation’s strategic direction and management’s role in achieving corporate objectives.

5.      Recognise that the governance of risk is a board responsibility

Establishing a sound system of risk oversight and management and internal control is another fundamental role of the board. Effective risk management supports better decision making because it develops a deeper insight into the risk-reward trade-offs that all organisations face.

6.      Ensure the directors have the information they need

Better information means better decisions. Regular board papers will provide directors with information that the CEO or management team has decided they need. But directors do not all have the same informational requirements, since they differ in their knowledge, skills, and experience. Briefings, presentations, site visits, individual director development programs, and so on can all provide directors with additional information. Above all, directors need to be able to find answers to the questions they have, so an access to independent professional advice policy is recommended.

7.      Build and maintain an effective governance infrastructure

Since the board is ultimately responsible for all the actions and decisions of an organisation, it will need to have in place specific policies to guide organisational behaviour. To ensure that the line of responsibility between board and management is clearly delineated, it is particularly important for the board to develop policies in relation to delegations. Also, under this topic are processes and procedures. Poor internal processes and procedures can lead to inadequate access to information, poor communication and uninformed decision making, resulting in a high level of dissatisfaction among directors. Enhancements to board meeting processes, meeting agendas, board papers and the board’s committee structure can often make the difference between a mediocre board and a high performing board.

8.      Appoint a competent chairperson

Research has shown that board structure and formal governance regulations are less important in preventing governance breaches and corporate wrongdoing than the culture and trust created by the chairperson. As the “leader” of the board, the chairperson should demonstrate strong and acknowledged leadership ability, the ability to establish a sound relationship with the CEO, and have the capacity to conduct meetings and lead group decision-making processes.

9.      Build a skills-based board

What is important for a board is that it has a good understanding of what skills it has and those skills it requires. Where possible, a board should seek to ensure that its members represent an appropriate balance between directors with experience and knowledge of the organisation and directors with specialist expertise or fresh perspective. Directors should also be considered on the additional qualities they possess, their “behavioural competencies”, as these qualities will influence the relationships around the boardroom table, between the board and management, and between directors and key stakeholders.

10.     Evaluate board and director performance and pursue opportunities for improvement

Boards must be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses, if they are to govern effectively. Board effectiveness can only be gauged if the board regularly assesses its own performance and that of individual directors. Improvements to come from a board and director evaluation can include areas as diverse as board processes, director skills, competencies and motivation, or even boardroom relationships. It is critical that any agreed actions that come out of an evaluation are implemented and monitored. Boards should consider addressing weaknesses uncovered in board evaluations through director development programs and enhancing their governance processes.

See on www.effectivegovernance.com.au

Faut-il limiter le nombre de mandats des administrateurs ?*

Voici un article publié par JOANN S. LUBLIN paru dans The Wall Street Journal qui montre l’évolution remarquable de la gouvernance des sociétés au cours des quarante dernières années. Vous verrez qu’il y a une tendance lourde à limiter le nombre de mandats des administrateurs de sociétés, mais que ce changement ne se fait pas sans heurt.

Plusieurs pensent que, malgré certains avantages évidents à avoir des administrateurs séniors sur les C.A., cette situation est un frein à la diversité et au renouvellement des générations au sein des conseils d’administration. C’est un article qui discute de ces problématiques avec nuance et avec des statistiques à l’appui.

Je souligne certains extraits pertinents de cet article. Bonne lecture. Faites-moi part de nos commentaires sur ce sujet assez controversé.

The 40-Year Club: America’s Longest-Serving Directors

Board colleagues say long-serving members often provide useful context about a company, its industry and its past. But activist investors contend the growing ranks of long-serving board members occupy spots that otherwise might go to younger and fresher talent. « Over-tenured directors also frustrate the goal of race and gender diversity, » adds Brandon Rees, acting head of the AFL-CIO’s Office of Investment.

Staying Power

Twenty-eight outside directors have at least 40 years’ tenure on a U.S. public company board.

Voir l’article pour identifier les noms

While 40-year directors are rare, companies appear increasingly reluctant to shake up their boardrooms. Among Russell 3000 companies, 6,457 independent directors—nearly 34% of the total—have served a decade or longer, GMI found. That’s up from 3,216 or about 18% in 2008.

Companies in Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index elected the smallest number of new directors last year in 10 years, according to a study by recruiters Spencer Stuart.

Some activist investors believe long-tenured board members can become too cozy with management.

The Council of Institutional Investors, a governance advocate, may soon urge shareholders and boards to look more skeptically at the independence of long-serving directors, says Ann Yerger, its executive director.

« Board members may not be able to fully exercise independent judgment after several years of service, » she adds. The council represents 125 pension funds with more than $3 trillion of assets.

Certain less-tenured directors favor term limits to hasten turnover. But just 17 major corporations impose such limits, Spencer Stuart’s study showed. A 12-year term makes sense because « board members become very stale after a while, » says Fred Hassan, a Time Warner Inc. TWX +0.55%director since 2009 and former Schering-Plough Corp. MRK -0.21%chief executive. He hopes to propose that limit for new board members of the media giant.

Not surprisingly, long-serving board members frequently oppose such rules. Instead, they support replacing poor performers through periodic evaluations of individual members. Richard T. Fisher, a Leggett director since 1972, says he and David S. Haffner, the firm’s CEO, sold the idea to its board last year.

Men seen as impediments to shaking up boardrooms (business.financialpost.com)

HP Board Expands Amid Turnaround Push (cio-today.com)

After 41 years, Soriano steps down from Harrison board (kitsapsun.com)

______________________________________________

*Je suis en congé jusqu’à la fin septembre. Durant cette période, j’ai décidé de rééditer les billets considérés comme étant les plus pertinents par les lecteurs de mon blogue (depuis le début des activités le 19 juillet 2011).

Rémunérations des administrateurs et pratiques de gouvernance | Survey du Conference Board 2013*

Voici le condensé d’un rapport sur les rémunérations des administrateurs de sociétés et sur les pratiques de gouvernance (aux É.U.), publié conjointement par le Conference Board, le NASDAQ OMX et le NYSE Euronext. Ce résumé a été transmis par Matteo Tonello du Conference Board et publié sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation.

This is « a benchmarking study with more than 150 corporate governance data points searchable by company size (measurable by revenue and asset value) and 20 industrial sectors. The report is based on a survey of public companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, Stanford University’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance, the National Investor Relations Institute (NIRI), the Shareholder Forum and Compliance Week also endorsed the survey by distributing it to their members and readers ».

The 2013 Director Compensation and Board Practices Report

Voici un extrait des points se rapportant à la rémunération des administrateurs. Pour de plus amples informations, je vous invite à lire l’article du HB Law School Forum ou à communiquer avec M. Tonello du Conference Board pour le rapport intégral de 2013.

Seal of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commi... — Seal of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Directors are best compensated in the energy industry, but company size can make a huge difference. Computer services companies are the most generous with full value share awards, but equity-based compensation is widely used across industries and irrespective of company size.
Stock options are not as favored as they used to be, except by the smallest companies increasing skepticism on the effectiveness of stock options and stock appreciation rights as long-term incentives has led to their decline, especially in the last few years.
Additional cash retainer for board chairmen is seldom offered by larger companies, which are more likely to reward lead directors.
A corporate program financing the matching of personal charitable contributions is the most common among the director perquisites reported by companies.
While many nonexecutive directors have C-suite experience, former or current CFOs are less represented than expected in the board of financial services companies.

Engagement accru des investisseurs institutionnels avec les C.A. et les directions en 2012 (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Board of Directors: Key Agenda for 2013 (shilpithapar.com)

Corporate Governance, Rule 10C-1, and the SEC: Conclusion (Part 9) (theracetothebottom.org)

Que font les « bons » administrateurs pour faciliter le succès des organisations ? (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

______________________________________________

Vous recherchez un mandat comme administrateur de sociétés | Trois références utiles ! *

Plusieurs personnes souhaitent occuper un poste sur un conseil d’administration mais ne savent pas comment procéder pour y arriver. Depuis que je suis impliqué dans la formation des administrateurs de sociétés et dans la publication de ce blogue en gouvernance, c’est la question qui m’est le plus souvent posée.

J’ai déjà abordé ce sujet au cours de mes billets antérieurs. Aujourd’hui, je veux à nouveau porter à votre attention trois références très concretes à ce propos.

Le premier article proposé a été publié le 9 janvier 2013 dans Business Insider; il traite de questions que toutes les personnes intéressées à siéger sur un C.A. se posent :

Quelles raisons m’inciteraient à siéger à un conseil d’administration ?
Quelles actions dois-je poser pour obtenir un poste ?
Dois-je viser un poste rémunéré ou un poste sur un conseil d’OBNL ?

L’article ci-dessous tente précisément de répondre à ces questions :

Your Complete Guide to Serving on a Board of Directors

« So here’s a question for you: Do you have a line in your resume stating you’re on a board of directors? Wait, you say. I have no experience, no connections, no way I could possibly do that! The truth is, many professionals don’t think of offering their services to a board until late into their career. But they could’ve reaped the career benefits of being on a board long before that.

2011 Board of Directors Retreat (Photo credit: sfbike)

Don’t expect to be appointed to a public company board seat and receive $200,000 in annual compensation and stock options. When you start your search, you will find many more available positions if you’re willing to work for free. Penelope Trunk offers a series of questions to help you decide if working for free is a good option for you, including:

Who are you going to work with on the board?

What’s the scope of the projects you will be handling?

How will you be able to leverage your experience on the board?

Bottom line: serving on a not-for-profit board can give you a taste of whether you enjoy being a board member. Are you ready to raise your game? Sitting on a board isn’t out of reach for you. You can do this ! »

___________________________________________________________________________________

Le deuxième article proposé a été publié le 10 janvier 2013 sur le site de 2020 Women on Boards. Il aborde les étapes concrètes à accomplir afin de se dénicher un poste sur un C.A. Vous trouverez, ci-après, le lien vers l’article ainsi qu’une liste des gestes à poser.

Veuillez lire l’article au complet pour mieux comprendre la portée de ces actions.

Want to get on a corporate board ?

« One of the things we learned from our National Conversation on Board Diversity on 12/12/12 is that people want more tactical information on how to get on a board of directors. So, just how do you crack the code? Here are a few tips to get you going. Make it part of your New Years’ resolution!

Make your intentions known

Think about industries you know about and identify companies in those industries

Make a short list of directors

Communicate your interest

Be Informed

Network with a search firm

Don’t waste anyone’s time

Be Patient »

______________________________________________________________________________________

La troisième référence est un très bon article de James Citrin, Senior Director de Spencer Stuart, publié sur mon blogue le 17 novembre 2012. C’est certainement un article susceptible d’intéresser plusieurs personnes désirant décrocher un poste sur un conseil d’administration.

Les diplômés et les diplômées des programmes de formation en gouvernance de sociétés, tels que le Collèges des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS), le Directors College (DC) et l’Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD), sont particulièrement invités (es) à lire ce billet d’expert, mais aussi à suivre les discussions sur son Blogue. Voici, ci-dessous, un extrait de l’article :

You Want to Be a Board Director – Now What?

Board of Directors Lineup (Photo credit: OCAPA)

“You’re a sitting chief executive officer who wants to see how another company’s board governs. Or you’re an aspiring CEO who wants to benefit from a valuable professional development opportunity and expand your marketability. Perhaps you are a newly retired executive who wants to stay active and connected. Or maybe you are a functional leader who wants to contribute your expertise in exchange for gaining a broader strategic perspective. You may even be a CEO or chief HR officer looking for ways to improve your own company’s succession planning by getting your CEO-ready executives boardroom experience. Whether it is one of these or any other number of reasons, many of today’s senior executives would like to join a corporate board of directors. The irony is that while much has been written about the legitimate difficulties of companies finding qualified and interested directors for their boards, there are a growing number of prospective directors who would be all too happy to serve. If you are one of these prospective directors, the question is how position yourself and navigate the nuances of the director selection process to get placed on a board”.

L’auteur propose six étapes à suivre. Lire l’article pour plus de détails.

Board Bio
Target List
Your Interests
Director Events
Search Firms
Not for Profits

Non Profit Board of Directors Checklist (jasteriou.wordpress.com)

The board of directors (corporatetips.wordpress.com)

Overseeing strategy is a core board function (venitism.blogspot.com)

Separating the roles of the Chairman of the Board of Directors and the CEO (venitism.blogspot.com)

______________________________________________

L’impact de la gouvernance sur les rémunérations des dirigeants

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, une présentation Power Point que Richard Leblanc a livrée à la conférence annuelle de la Canadian Society of Corporate Secretaries, le 21 août 2013 à Halifax, NS.

Governance of Executive Compensation and Pay for performance

Cette présentation aborde tous les points chauds dans le domaine de la rémunération des hauts dirigeants. Richard a eu la générosité de mettre cette présentation en ligne via le groupe de discussion Boards & Advisors. Il s’agit d’une mine d’information pour toute personne intéressée par l’influence de la gouvernance sur les rémunérations des dirigeants.

Si vous êtes intéressés par certains aspects plus spécifiques de ces questions, je suis assuré qu’il se fera un plaisir de vous donner de plus amples informations. Voici un résumé des 10 thèmes abordés dans cette présentation. Bonne lecture.

1. Red flags and best practices;

2. Shareholder engagement and activism;

3. Changes to executive compensation;

4. Compensation of oversight functions (Canada, FSB);

5. Internal pay equity (coming in August);

6. Independent director compensation: Case;

7. Incorporating LT NF metrics into compensation: Case;

8. CEO / Board succession planning: Case;

9. Risk adjusted compensation;

10. Regulation of Proxy Advisors.

Un consultant de McKinsey responsable des rémunérations excessives des PCD (CEO) ! (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

How the fat cats first learned to get even fatter (standard.co.uk)

Some notes on executive compensation (yourbrainonecon.wordpress.com)

Pay (Not) For Performance – How Shareholders Loose and Executives Win (thecandidliberal.com)

Executive Compensation and the Impotency of Say on Pay (theracetothebottom.org)

Published / Preprint: Duration of Executive Compensation (moneyscience.com)

Companies Will Soon Publish The Ratio Of CEO Pay To Worker Pay (thinkprogress.org)

Proposition de changement aux règles de gouvernance | Une enquête de Richard Leblanc

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un billet publié par Richard Leblanc* sur son blogue Governance Gateway. L’auteur a interrogé un nombre important d’acteurs de la scène de la gouvernance (investisseurs activistes, gestionnaires de fonds privés, administrateurs, CEO) et a tenu compte des points de vue émis par plusieurs groupes d’experts dans le domaine :

« Advisory work with regulators; assessments of leading boards; expertwitness work; academic and practitioner literature; current and emerging regulations; director conferences and webinars; lectures the author has delivered to the Institute of Corporate Directors and Directors College in Canada; discussions in the author’s LinkedIn group, Board and Advisors; and research being conducted with the author and Henry D. Wolfe on building high performance public company boards ».

Il s’agit d’une proposition de changement à trois niveaux :

(1) Renforcement du rôle du C.A. en matière de création de valeur;

(2) Imputabilité de la direction envers le C.A.;

(3) Imputabilité du C.A. envers les actionnaires.

L’auteur nous indique que l’article sera bientôt publié dans International Journal of Disclosure and Governance sous le titre Forty Proposals to Strengthen: the Public Company Board of Director’s Role in Value Creation; Management Accountability to the Board; and Board Accountability to Shareholders

Je vous invite à consulter cette liste afin d’avoir un aperçu des types de changements proposés. Vos commentaires sont toujours les bienvenus. Bonne lecture.

Proposals to Strengthen a Board’s Role in Value Creation, Management Accountability to the Board, and Board Accountability to Shareholders

I. Increase Board Engagement, Expertise and Incentives to Focus on Value Creation

Reduce the size of the Board.

Increase the frequency of Board meetings.

Limit Director overboardedness.

Limit Chair of the Board overboardedness.

Increase Director work time.

Increase the Board Chair’s role in the value creation process.

Focus the majority of Board time on value creation and company performance.

Increase Director roles and responsibilities relative to value creation.

Increase Director compensation, and match incentive compensation to long-term value creation and individual performance.

Enable Director access to information and reporting Management.

Enable Director and Board access to expertise to inform value creation as needed.

Require active investing in the Company by Directors.

Select Directors who can contribute directly to value creation.

Revise the Board’s committee structure to address value creation.

Hold Management to account.

Disclose individual Director areas of expertise directly related to value creation.

Increase Board engagement focused on value creation.

Establish and fund an independent Office of the Chairman.

Limit Board homogeneity and groupthink.

II. Increase Director Independence from Management and Management Accountability to the Board

Increase objective Director and advisory independence.

Limit Director interlocks.

Limit over-tenured Directors.

Limit potential Management capture and social relatedness of Directors.

Decrease undue Management influence on Director selection.

Decrease undue Management influence on Board Chair selection.

Increase objective independence of governance assurance providers.

Limit management control of board protocols.

Address fully perceived conflicts of interest.

Establish independent oversight functions reporting directly to Committees of the Board to support compliance oversight.

Match Management compensation with longer-term value creation, corporate performance and risk management.

III. Increase Director Accountability to Shareholders

The Board Chair and Committee Chairs shall communicate face-to-face and visit regularly with major Shareholders.

Communicate the value creation plan to Shareholders.

Implement integrated, longer-term reporting focused on sustained value creation that includes non-financial performance and investment.

Implement independent and transparent Director performance reviews with Shareholder input linked to re-nomination.

Each Director, each year, shall receive a majority of Shareholder votes cast to continue serving as a Director.

Make it easier for Shareholders to propose and replace Directors.

Limit any undue Management influence on Board – Shareholder communication.

Limit Shareholder barriers to the governance process that can be reasonably seen to promote Board or Management entrenchment.

__________________________________

* Richard W. Leblanc, Associate Professor, Law, Governance & Ethics, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies, of the Bar of Ontario; Summer Faculty 2013 (MGMT S-5018 Corporate Governance) at Harvard University; Faculty at the Directors College; and Research Fellow and Advisory Board Member, Institute for Excellence in Corporate Governance, University of Texas at Dallas, Naveen Jindal School of Management.

Trois références utiles à la recherche d’un mandat comme administrateur de sociétés

J’ai déjà abordé ce sujet au cours de mes billets antérieurs. Aujourd’hui, je veux à nouveau porter à votre attention trois références très concretes à ce propos.

Le premier article proposé a été publié le 9 janvier 2013 dans Business Insider; il traite de questions que toutes les personnes intéressées à siéger sur un C.A. se posent :

Quelles raisons m’inciteraient à siéger à un conseil d’administration ?
Quelles actions dois-je poser pour obtenir un poste ?
Dois-je viser un poste rémunéré ou un poste sur un conseil d’OBNL ?

L’article ci-dessous tente précisément de répondre à ces questions :

Your Complete Guide to Serving on a Board of Directors

« So here’s a question for you: Do you have a line in your resume stating you’re on a board of directors? Wait, you say. I have no experience, no connections, no way I could possibly do that! The truth is, many professionals don’t think of offering their services to a board until late into their career. But they could’ve reaped the career benefits of being on a board long before that.

2011 Board of Directors Retreat (Photo credit: sfbike)

Don’t expect to be appointed to a public company board seat and receive $200,000 in annual compensation and stock options. When you start your search, you will find many more available positions if you’re willing to work for free. Penelope Trunk offers a series of questions to help you decide if working for free is a good option for you, including:

Who are you going to work with on the board?

What’s the scope of the projects you will be handling?

How will you be able to leverage your experience on the board?

Bottom line: serving on a not-for-profit board can give you a taste of whether you enjoy being a board member. Are you ready to raise your game? Sitting on a board isn’t out of reach for you. You can do this ! »

___________________________________________________________________________________

Veuillez lire l’article au complet pour mieux comprendre la portée de ces actions.

Want to get on a corporate board ?

« One of the things we learned from our National Conversation on Board Diversity on 12/12/12 is that people want more tactical information on how to get on a board of directors. So, just how do you crack the code? Here are a few tips to get you going. Make it part of your New Years’ resolution!

Make your intentions known

Think about industries you know about and identify companies in those industries

Make a short list of directors

Communicate your interest

Be Informed

Network with a search firm

Don’t waste anyone’s time

Be Patient »

______________________________________________________________________________________

You Want to Be a Board Director – Now What?

“You’re a sitting chief executive officer who wants to see how another company’s board governs. Or you’re an aspiring CEO who wants to benefit from a valuable professional development opportunity and expand your marketability. Perhaps you are a newly retired executive who wants to stay active and connected. Or maybe you are a functional leader who wants to contribute your expertise in exchange for gaining a broader strategic perspective. You may even be a CEO or chief HR officer looking for ways to improve your own company’s succession planning by getting your CEO-ready executives boardroom experience. Whether it is one of these or any other number of reasons, many of today’s senior executives would like to join a corporate board of directors. The irony is that while much has been written about the legitimate difficulties of companies finding qualified and interested directors for their boards, there are a growing number of prospective directors who would be all too happy to serve. If you are one of these prospective directors, the question is how position yourself and navigate the nuances of the director selection process to get placed on a board”.

L’auteur propose six étapes à suivre. Lire l’article pour plus de détails.

Board Bio
Target List
Your Interests
Director Events
Search Firms
Not for Profits

Non Profit Board of Directors Checklist (jasteriou.wordpress.com)

The board of directors (corporatetips.wordpress.com)

Overseeing strategy is a core board function (venitism.blogspot.com)

Separating the roles of the Chairman of the Board of Directors and the CEO (venitism.blogspot.com)

Comment contrer la nature insidieuse du capitalisme financier ?

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un document émanant d’une présentation d’Yvan Allaire* à la conférence nationale de l’Institut des administrateurs de sociétés (Institute of Corporate Directors) à Toronto le 22 mai 2013 dont le thème était Shareholder Activism: Short vs. Long-termism.

Dans son article, l’auteur prend une position affirmative en tentant d’expliquer les comportements court-termistes des actionnaires (investisseurs) activistes. Ce document, à ma connaissance, n’a pas été traduit en français mais il mérite que l’on s’y penche pour réfléchir à trois questions fondamentales en gouvernance. Les questions soulevées dans le document (traduites en français) sont les suivantes :

(1) La gestion avec une perspective court-termiste représente-t-elle un problème sérieux ?

(2) Les investisseurs activistes sont-ils des joueurs court-termistes dont les actions ont des conséquences négatives pour les entreprises à long terme ?

(3) Les conseils d’administration des sociétés canadiennes doivent-ils être mieux protégés des actions des investisseurs activistes et des offres d’achat hostiles ?

Voici quelques extraits du document ci-dessous. Je vous invite à en prendre connaissance :

Good versus Bad Capitalism: a Call for a Governance Revolution

Bad capitalism is finance-driven capitalism; it is capitalism without true owners, a capitalism in which corporate leaders, motivated by the carrot of lavish incentives and the stick of humiliating replacement, are singularly focused on generating short-term value for shareholders. It is a system where financial operators reap immense riches from activities of no social value.

The board members of the privatized company, often made up of general partners of the fund, are compensated at a level and in a manner hardly conceivable for board members of a publicly listed company.

Capitalism Plus retail box cover. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Board members of the newly privatized company must not be « independent » and rarely are; a majority of board members of publicly listed companies must be « independent ».

The boards of listed corporations must discharge fully all their fiduciary and legal responsibilities; that component of governance grabs a good portion of the time available to board members; privatized companies have none of these hassles and can concentrate on strategy, cash flow management, etc.

The board of a privatized companies will call directly on outside consulting firms to assess the company, its competitors and so forth, and the external consultants will report directly to the board. Now imagine that the board of a publicly listed company were to inform management that it intends to hire some firm to audit the company’s strategy and benchmark its performance. That would not fly well and would certainly create severe tensions between the board and management. Management would claim that the board is straying away from its governance role; it would contend that the company regularly gets this sort of studies and reports regularly to the board on their results, etc.

Be that as it may, a governance revolution is in the making. Novel ways of dealing with the insuperable limits of current forms of governance must be found.

Indeed, the theme of this conference could well have been « Good Capitalism versus Bad Capitalism » because short-termism and unchecked activities of speculative funds are emblematic of « bad capitalism », of the kind we must get rid.

Is Governance different in Publicly listed companies? (surenrajdotcom.wordpress.com)

Protect Equity Crowdfund Investors by Strong Corporate Governance (healthycrowdfunder.wordpress.com)

Performance Vs Governance at Disney. (surenrajdotcom.wordpress.com)

Don’t Confuse Free Market Capitalism with Crony Capitalism (yevala.com)

___________________________________________________________

* Yvan Allaire, Ph.D., FRSC, président exécutif, IGOPP

Faut-il limiter le nombre de mandats des administrateurs ?

Je souligne certains extraits pertinents de cet article. Bonne lecture. Faites-moi part de nos commentaires sur ce sujet assez controversé.

The 40-Year Club: America’s Longest-Serving Directors

Board colleagues say long-serving members often provide useful context about a company, its industry and its past. But activist investors contend the growing ranks of long-serving board members occupy spots that otherwise might go to younger and fresher talent. « Over-tenured directors also frustrate the goal of race and gender diversity, » adds Brandon Rees, acting head of the AFL-CIO’s Office of Investment.

Staying Power

Twenty-eight outside directors have at least 40 years’ tenure on a U.S. public company board.

Voir l’article pour identifier les noms

While 40-year directors are rare, companies appear increasingly reluctant to shake up their boardrooms. Among Russell 3000 companies, 6,457 independent directors—nearly 34% of the total—have served a decade or longer, GMI found. That’s up from 3,216 or about 18% in 2008.

Companies in Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index elected the smallest number of new directors last year in 10 years, according to a study by recruiters Spencer Stuart.

Some activist investors believe long-tenured board members can become too cozy with management.

The Council of Institutional Investors, a governance advocate, may soon urge shareholders and boards to look more skeptically at the independence of long-serving directors, says Ann Yerger, its executive director.

« Board members may not be able to fully exercise independent judgment after several years of service, » she adds. The council represents 125 pension funds with more than $3 trillion of assets.

Certain less-tenured directors favor term limits to hasten turnover. But just 17 major corporations impose such limits, Spencer Stuart’s study showed. A 12-year term makes sense because « board members become very stale after a while, » says Fred Hassan, a Time Warner Inc. TWX +0.55%director since 2009 and former Schering-Plough Corp. MRK -0.21%chief executive. He hopes to propose that limit for new board members of the media giant.

Not surprisingly, long-serving board members frequently oppose such rules. Instead, they support replacing poor performers through periodic evaluations of individual members. Richard T. Fisher, a Leggett director since 1972, says he and David S. Haffner, the firm’s CEO, sold the idea to its board last year.

Men seen as impediments to shaking up boardrooms (business.financialpost.com)

HP Board Expands Amid Turnaround Push (cio-today.com)

After 41 years, Soriano steps down from Harrison board (kitsapsun.com)

Suggestions de réforme pour la rémunération des membres de C.A.

Voici un article de Richard Leblanc paru dans BoardExpert.com que vous apprécierez sûrement. Comme à son habitude, Richard utilise un style direct et simple pour aborder l’une des facettes les plus complexes de la gouvernance des organisations : la rémunération incitative reliée à la performance à long terme.

L’auteur discute plus particulièrement d’un objet novateur : la rémunération des administrateurs alignée sur les intérêts des actionnaires.

Voici un extrait de l’article ainsi qu’un aperçu de l’approche qu’il suggère. Qu’en pensez-vous ?

Reforms to director compensationneed to occur

« Most independent directors on public company boards are compensated in a blend of cash and company shares. The equity component is typically restricted or deferred until the director retires from the board, thus postponing taxes and enabling the director to amass a portion of equity in the company to align his or her interests with shareholders (it is believed). The equity can be a predetermined number of restricted shares, or a set monetary amount in the form of share “units.”

The problem with paying independent directors this way is that there is little incentive for personal performance or company performance. Directors get paid the cash and equity regardless. There is little if any downside, especially when directors can ride a stock market or Fed driven increase in overall share prices. Not surprisingly, the activists noted this lack of incentive pay.

Sometimes money is a powerful incentive. (Photo credit: wayneandwax)

It is hardly surprising that boards do not focus on value creation, strategic planning, or maximizing company performance, survey after survey, as much as they do on compliance. Their compensation structure does not incent them to. Compensation incentives drive behavior, both for management and for directors ».

Here is what is needed to align director pay with shareholder interests:

Directors should be required to issue cheques from their personal savings accounts to purchase shares in the company. Bill Ackman of Pershing Square stated that if Canadian Pacific directors were required to cut cheques for $100,000 each, the CEO would have been fired prior to Pershing Square being involved. Mr. Ackman is right. “Skin in the game” for a director does not mean shares are given to a director in lieu of service. The motivational factor to be attuned to shareholders is greater if directors are actual investors in the company. In private equity companies, non-management directors are encouraged to “buy into” the company and invest on the same terms as other investors.

For Directors’ equity to vest (the portion they did not purchase), hurdles would need to be achieved that reflect personal performance and long-term value creation of the company. Assuming you have the right directors, this sets up a situation in which Directors are forced to engage in value creation and be rewarded for doing so, similar to private equity directors. The hurdle rate provides the incentive. The vesting hurdle should be based on the underlying performance of the company, commensurate with its risk and product cycle, possibly peer based, and not simply on riding a bull market.

The long-term performance metrics for value creation should also apply to senior management, and the board should lead by example. The vast majority of performance incentives are short-term, financial and quantitative. We know that the majority of company value however is now based on intangibles. Long-term leading indicators such as innovation, reputation, talent, resilience and sustainability are being completely overlooked in compensation design. You get what you pay for.

Management has proposed “passive” pay for directors and short-term pay for themselves. Boards have acquiesced.

Renforcement des règles de gouvernance | Une proposition de Richard Leblanc

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un billet publié par Richard Leblanc* sur son blogue Governance Gateway. Il s’agit d’une proposition de changement à trois niveaux :

(1) Renforcement du rôle du C.A. en matière de création de valeur;

(2) Imputabilité de la direction envers le C.A.;

(3) Imputabilité du C.A. envers les actionnaires.

L’auteur nous demande de faire des suggestions dans le but de peaufiner un cas qu’il est en voie de réaliser. Des suggestions concernant cette liste ?

Proposals to Strengthen a Board’s Role in Value Creation, Management Accountability to the Board, and Board Accountability to Shareholders

I. Increase Board Engagement, Expertise and Incentives to Focus on Value Creation

Reduce the size of the Board.

Increase the frequency of Board meetings.

Limit Director overboardedness.

Limit Chair of the Board overboardedness.

Increase Director work time.

Increase the Board Chair’s role in the value creation process.

Focus the majority of Board time on value creation and company performance.

Increase Director roles and responsibilities relative to value creation.

Increase Director compensation, and match incentive compensation to long-term value creation and individual performance.

Enable Director access to information and reporting Management.

Enable Director and Board access to expertise to inform value creation as needed.

Require active investing in the Company by Directors.

Select Directors who can contribute directly to value creation.

Revise the Board’s committee structure to address value creation.

Hold Management to account.

Disclose individual Director areas of expertise directly related to value creation.

Increase Board engagement focused on value creation.

Establish and fund an independent Office of the Chairman.

Limit Board homogeneity and groupthink.

II. Increase Director Independence from Management and Management Accountability to the Board

Increase objective Director and advisory independence.

Limit Director interlocks.

Limit over-tenured Directors.

Limit potential Management capture and social relatedness of Directors.

Decrease undue Management influence on Director selection.

Decrease undue Management influence on Board Chair selection.

Increase objective independence of governance assurance providers.

Limit management control of board protocols.

Address fully perceived conflicts of interest.

Establish independent oversight functions reporting directly to Committees of the Board to support compliance oversight.

Match Management compensation with longer-term value creation, corporate performance and risk management.

III. Increase Director Accountability to Shareholders

The Board Chair and Committee Chairs shall communicate face-to-face and visit regularly with major Shareholders.

Communicate the value creation plan to Shareholders.

Implement integrated, longer-term reporting focused on sustained value creation that includes non-financial performance and investment.

Implement independent and transparent Director performance reviews with Shareholder input linked to re-nomination.

Each Director, each year, shall receive a majority of Shareholder votes cast to continue serving as a Director.

Make it easier for Shareholders to propose and replace Directors.

Limit any undue Management influence on Board – Shareholder communication.

Limit Shareholder barriers to the governance process that can be reasonably seen to promote Board or Management entrenchment.

__________________________________

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés au thème :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés au sujet :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés au sujet :

Partagez (share) ce post

Related articles

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Rapport de Davies sur la gouvernance 2013

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés :

Partagez (share) ce post

The Governance Committee: A Key Element of a Successful Strategy

Articles d’intérêt :

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Staying Power

Articles reliés :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés :

Partagez (share) ce post

Quelques articles reliés au sujet :

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés :

Partagez (share) ce post

Articles reliés :

Partagez (share) ce post

Staying Power

Articles reliés :

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post