Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés est heureux de vous dévoiler sa 3e série de capsules d’experts, formée de huit entrevues vidéo.
Pendant 3 minutes, un expert du Collège partage une réflexion et se prononce sur un sujet d’actualité lié à la gouvernance. Une capsule est dévoilée chaque semaine.
Aujourd’hui, je vous propose le visionnement des deux plus récentes capsules d’experts qui sont maintenant en ligne. Elles ont pour thèmes « le comité de gouvernance » par M. Richard Joly, président, Leaders & Cie et «l’auditeur externe» par MmeLily Adam, associée, Services de certification, EY.
Le guide Responsabilités des administrateurs au Canada, issu de la collaboration entre Osler et l’Institut des administrateurs de sociétés, est un outil de référence de choix dont tous les administrateurs ont besoin pour comprendre les pratiques exemplaires en matière de gouvernance et pour s’acquitter de leurs responsabilités, dans le contexte actuel des tendances commerciales en constante évolution et des changements dans le marché.
Le guide couvre :
les devoirs et l’obligation de rendre compte des administrateurs, et le rôle des actionnaires
les questions de gouvernance, y compris les conflits d’intérêts des administrateurs, les lois sur les valeurs mobilières et les exigences des marchés boursiers
les obligations d’information des sociétés ouvertes
les questions de financement, de marchés des capitaux et d’offres publiques d’achat
les responsabilités imposées par la loi, y compris les opérations d’initiés, la législation sur l’environnement et les questions d’ordre fiscal
la responsabilité pour les infractions en vertu des lois sur les sociétés
la gestion du risque
Inscrivez-vous pour obtenir un exemplaire en cliquant sur le lien ci-dessous. Il vous sera envoyé par courriel dès sa publication.
Il y a dans le document de PwC un exposé clair des principales tendances en gouvernance au cours des prochaines années. Le site de PwC présente également les chapitres individuels du rapport.
Voici un résumé de l’échantillon des entreprises, suivi d’un rappel des 12 tendances observées. Vous trouverez beaucoup de points communs avec l’article que j’ai publié dans le journal Les Affaires : Gouvernance : 12 tendances à surveiller
Bonne lecture !
In the summer of 2014, 863 public company directors responded to our survey. Of those directors, 70% serve on the boards of companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue, and participants represented nearly two-dozen industries. In PwC’s 2014 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, directors share their views on governance trends that we believe will impact the board of the future, including: board performance and diversity, board priorities and practices, IT and cybersecurity oversight, strategy and risk oversight, and executive compensation and director communications.
Many boards are giving even more attention to enhancing their own performance and acting on issues identified in their self-assessments.
Board composition is scrutinized
Board composition is under pressure to evolve to meet new business challenges and stakeholder expectations. Today’s directors are more focused than ever on ensuring their boards have the right expertise and experience to be effective.
Board diversity gets attention
Stakeholders are more interested in board diversity, and boards are increasingly focused on recruiting directors with diversity of background and experience.
More pressure on board priorities and practices
Director performance continues to face scrutiny from investors, regulators, and other stakeholders, causing board practices to remain in the spotlight.
Activist shareholders get active
With over $100 billion in assets under activist management1, more directors are discussing how to deal with potential activist campaigns.
The influence of emerging IT grows
Companies and directors increasingly see IT as inextricably wed to corporate strategy and the company’s business. IT is now a business issue, not just a technology issue.
Increased concerns about the Achilles’ heel of IT—cybersecurity
Cybersecurity breaches are regularly and prominently in the news. And directors are searching for answers on how to provide effective oversight in this area.
It’s still all about risk management
Risk management is a top priority for investors, and they have high expectations of boards in this regard.
Investors question company strategies
Effective oversight requires that the board receive the right information from management to effectively address key elements of strategy.
Executive compensation remains a hot topic
Boards are devoting even more time and attention to the critical issue of appropriate compensation.
Stakeholders are showing continuing interest in how proxy advisory firms operate.
The interest of stakeholders in the proxy advisory industry is a key trend.
Increasing expectations about director communications
In response, boards must determine their role in stakeholder communications—and evaluate their processes and procedures governing such communications
Cette vidéo montre comment les activistes opèrent sur les marchés mais aussi au sein des conseils d’administration. C’est une présentation vraiment très utile pour mieux saisir les différentes catégories d’activistes ainsi que les motivations qui les animent.
Excellente discussion sur la montée de l’activisme. À visionner !
Activism is on the rise. When and how can activist shareholders in the boardroom be a force for positive change? Directors need to be prepared. Janet Clark, Darren Novak, Brian L. Shorr, and Andrew Shapiro discuss the issues around strategy and corporate governance at an NACD board leadership conference.
The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) is certainly a recognized authority, when it comes to discussing and establishing leading boardroom practices in the United States.
Informed by more than 35 years of experience, NACD delivers insights and resources that more than 14,000 corporate director members from the public, private and non-profit sectors rely upon to make sound strategic decisions and confidently confront complex business challenges.
Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés est heureux de vous dévoiler sa 3e série de capsules d’experts, formée de huit entrevues vidéo.
Pendant 3 minutes, un expert du Collège partage une réflexion et se prononce sur un sujet d’actualité lié à la gouvernance. Une capsule est dévoilée chaque semaine.
Aujourd’hui, je vous propose le visionnement des deux plus récentes capsules d’experts qui sont maintenant en ligne. Elles ont pour thèmes « La gouvernance des PME » par Mme Anne-Marie Croteau, ASC, vice-doyenne responsable des relations externes à l’École de gestion John-Molson et professeure titulaire, Université Concordia, et « La présidence du CA » par M. Michel Clair, ASC, président et chef de la direction, Groupe Santé Sedna.
Voici un article de Richard Leblanc, avocat, expert-conseil en gouvernance et professeur-chercheur, publié récemment dans le HuffPost Business Canada, qui alimentera les discussions portant sur les changements requis en gouvernance au Canada.
L’auteur présente un changement réglementaire qui permettrait à des actionnaires d’avoir accès à la circulaire d’information pour fins de votation aux assemblées annuelles. Présentement, les actionnaires n’ont pas la possibilité de faire inscrire des candidatures d’administrateurs dans la circulaire de la direction; cela est du ressort du conseil d’administration qui fait des propositions de candidatures basées sur les recommandations d’un comité de gouvernance formé de membres du C.A.
Cette façon de fonctionner, selon Richard Leblanc, a pour résultat de bloquer la nomination de nouveaux administrateurs issus de la base actionnariale, ouvrant ainsi la voie à de grandes batailles d’opinions lorsque les actionnaires-investisseurs activistes exigent des changements à la gouvernance des sociétés.
La proposition de Richard Leblanc permettrait l’inclusion de candidatures d’actionnaires dans le prospectus de sollicitation à certaines conditions :
(1) L’actionnaire ou le groupe d’actionnaires doit posséder un minimum d’actions dans l’entreprise (disons environ 3 %);
(2) Les actions doivent avoir été acquises depuis une certaine période de temps (disons trois ans);
(3) Les actionnaires peuvent soumettre annuellement des candidatures d’administrateurs jusqu’à un maximum de 25 % des administrateurs proposés dans la circulaire (dans le cas d’une élection non contestée, c’est-à-dire dans le cas où un changement de contrôle n’est pas envisagé).
L’auteur est très conscient que le management des entreprises est susceptible de résister à un tel changement car il ne veut pas de surprises (le management veut conserver son pouvoir d’influence dans le processus …). De plus, le C.A. veut conserver ses prérogatives de choisir ses pairs !
Que pensez-vous de cette approche ? En quoi celle-ci peut-elle améliorer la gouvernance ? Les actionnaires minoritaires auront-ils un rôle significativement plus crucial à jouer ? Est-ce le bon moyen pour susciter une plus grande participation des actionnaires ?
L’argumentation pour les changements proposés est développée dans l’article de Richard Leblanc présenté ci-dessous.
Bonne lecture ! Je souhaite avoir votre opinion sur cette approche, à première vue, favorable aux actionnaires.
I teach my students and counsel board clients that shareholders elect directors; directors appoint managers; directors are accountable to shareholders; and managers are accountable to directors. This is largely theoretical.
Here is the reality: Shareholders: (i) cannot select directors; (ii) cannot communicate with directors; and (iii) cannot remove directors, by law, without great cost and difficulty. Therefore, directors are largely homogenous groups who are selected by themselves, or, worse yet, management.
Addressing the foregoing is the one piece of reform that will change corporate governance and performance for the better. The rest is, as they say, window dressing.
I have encouraged institutional investors and regulators to consider advocating what is known as « proxy access. » This means that a shareholder, or a group of shareholders, who (i) own a modest, minimum threshold of shares (say 3 per cent, although the percentage could be higher or lower, or floating, depending on the size of the company); (ii) for a period of time (say three years, although the time period could be shorter); (iii) can select up to 25 per cent of proposed directors, of the total board size, in an uncontested election (meaning a change of control is not desired by the shareholders) in a given year.
When shareholders « select » their nominees for the board, these directors would be alongside, in the management proxy circular, in alphabetical order, with profile parity (short bios and areas of competency), the management slate of directors. Management would be obliged to include shareholder-nominated directors, at a cost to the company, not shareholders, if the above ownership and time requirements are met. There would be no costly proxy battles or dissident slates. There would be no undue influence by management to marginalize shareholder-nominated directors within or outside of the proxy. Rules of the road will be set.
Then, shareholders get to decide, as they should, on the best directors from among the management-proposed and the shareholder-proposed directors. Ideally, the selection should be as blind or neutral as possible. The focus should be solely on the qualifications, competencies and track record of the proposed directors for election at that company. May the best directors win, as should be the case in any election, versus a slate of management-nominated directors, which is the case now. Under this new regime, there will be winners and losers. The practical effect may be that legacy or unqualified directors may withdraw from this scrutiny, as Canadian Pacific directors did at the time of shareholder Pershing Square’s involvement. This is not an undesired outcome and creates a market for the most qualified directors to rise to the top.
When proxy access was proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the U.S., management and lawyers who work for management used shareholder money to fight proxy access proposed under Dodd Frank, and won in the U.S. Court of Appeals, on the basis of an inadequate cost benefit analysis. Canadian investors and regulators should learn from this experience. Proxy access now is left to companies on a one-off basis, rather than being system wide. Meaningful proxy access has only occurred at a small number of companies as a result. The SEC should revisit proxy access. Industry Canada is currently looking at implementing proxy access at the 5 per cent level for all federally incorporated companies.
Opponents to proxy access argue that shareholders selecting directors will propose special purpose directors or directors who lack the background or experience. The evidence is the opposite. Shareholders are better at proposing directors who have the shareholder track record and industry expertise that the current board lacks. Recall Canadian Pacific, where not a single director possessed rail experience prior to shareholder involvement. There are other examples at Hess, Office Depot, Darden, Bob Evans, Abercrombie and Occidental Petroleum (see Field Experience Helps Win Board Seats), where shareholder-advocated directors were either better than incumbent ones, or caused the renewal of management-advocated ones. A director qualification dispute is welcome and will focus the lens on competencies of directors, including industry expertise, which is a good thing. Ann C. Mule and Charles Elson report in « Directors and Boards » that « One study concludes that more powerful CEOs tend to avoid independent expert directors. »
Herein lies the real resistance to proxy access: Management does not want it, and, the record shows, will fight vigorously to resist it. Management-retained advocates hired to oppose proxy access should disclose whom their client is. Directors however, when deciding to support proxy access, or not, should not be beholden to management, nor their advisors, nor act out of self-interest in entrenching themselves, but should be guided only by the best interests of the company, including its shareholders.
There is evidence that the market values strong proxy access positively, leading to an increase in shareholder wealth. If a director possesses the independence of mind, and the competency and skills to serve on the board, they should welcome proxy access. It will mean that the under performing directors on the board will be ferreted out, and current directors can avoid this uncomfortable task. Shareholders and the new competitive market for corporate directors will do it for them.
Voici un excellent guide, produit par Deloitte, qui porte sur les bons gestes à poser par les conseils d’administration lorsqu’ils sont aux prises avec les problématiques liées aux fusions et acquisitions, aux crises à gérer et aux problèmes financiers.
Afin de vous donner une idée du contenu du document, voici un aperçu des thèmes abordés.
Les paramètres de la gouvernance évoluent
Fusions et acquisitions : une bonne gouvernance à toutes les étapes du processus
Gestion de crise : le manque de préparation représente clairement un risque
Le conseil d’administration vient d’apprendre que l’entreprise pourrait être à court de liquidités d’ici un an. Que devez-vous faire? Après une acquisition d’entreprise, le conseil d’administration est poursuivi par les actionnaires, qui l’accusent de ne pas avoir supervisé adéquatement la décision concernant le prix d’achat. Comment prévenir une telle situation? Votre entreprise traverse une crise depuis que la direction a été accusée d’avoir fourni de faux renseignements à des auditeurs externes. Quand faut-il demander conseil à des experts indépendants?
On a fait grand cas des pressions subies par les conseils d’administration dans les mois éprouvants qui ont suivi la crise financière mondiale. De nombreux facteurs ont été mis en cause, notamment la déréglementation du secteur financier, les procédures d’audit inadéquates, la confiance excessive des investisseurs, les pratiques de prêt viciées et la cupidité des entreprises. Les conseils d’administration n’ont pas échappé à cet examen, et les observateurs se demandent si une surveillance plus efficace de la part des conseils d’administration des institutions financières n’aurait pas permis de repérer et de résoudre certains des problèmes qui ont presque anéanti l’économie mondiale. Les conseils d’administration comprenaient-ils assez de membres possédant des connaissances suffisantes et appropriées? Les administrateurs ont-ils posé les bonnes questions? Ont-ils pris les bonnes mesures? Avaient-ils l’information la plus récente sur les nouveaux enjeux? Étaient-ils prêts à contester la direction? Naturellement, avec le recul, la crise financière est maintenant vue comme une tempête causée par une multitude de facteurs dont aucun n’est entièrement à blâmer, et les instances de réglementation et les entreprises appliquent encore les mesures correctives qui s’imposent. Les questions que cette crise a soulevées continuent cependant de préoccuper les conseils d’administration en général. En effet, à mesure que la crise financière devient chose du passé, les conseils d’administration s’interrogent sur d’autres questions et sur un éventail de risques et de responsabilités possibles.
Les cinq dernières années ont été le théâtre de grands bouleversements dans l’arène mondiale de la réglementation. Dans bien des secteurs, la quantité et la complexité des règles ont augmenté, de même que la rigueur avec laquelle elles sont appliquées; les entreprises ont du mal à suivre la cadence, car elles composent encore avec les effets de l’après-crise et cherchent le plus possible à limiter les risques. De leur côté, les conseils d’administration tentent également de s’adapter, malgré la transformation des attentes des parties prenantes, des organismes de réglementation et du public.
Quelles ont été les conséquences de ces événements pour l’administrateur moyen? Des pressions venant de tous les fronts. Par exemple, le rôle de l’administrateur, surtout de celui qui cumule plusieurs postes, peut être si astreignant qu’il devient ingérable et présente de plus en plus de risques du point de vue de la responsabilité. La quantité de connaissances réglementaires et spécialisées nécessaires pour siéger efficacement à un conseil d’administration va en augmentant, et les administrateurs sont souvent dépassés par l’étendue croissante de leurs tâches.
Les conseils d’administration se trouvent donc actuellement dans une position très difficile. Étant donné leur vaste mandat, ils doivent se tenir à l’affût d’une variété de plus en plus importante de renseignements, adopter de nouvelles stratégies de réponse en vertu de leur mandat et déterminer dans quelles circonstances ils doivent consulter des experts indépendants.
Le présent document est conçu pour leur venir en aide. Il examine trois questions cruciales auxquelles les conseils d’administration accordent rarement leur attention, c’est-à-dire les fusions et acquisitions, la gestion de crise et les difficultés financières. Il présente les principaux risques que les conseils d’administration devraient prendre en considération dans chaque domaine, suggère des mesures d’atténuation de ces risques et décrit les avantages d’une meilleure surveillance de leur part ainsi que les dangers d’un laxisme prolongé.
Aujourd’hui, j’aimerais partager avec vous une étude empirique vraiment très intéressante portant sur deux approches réglementaires à la diversité sur les conseils d’administration:
(1) les quotas ou les mesures ciblées et
(2) l’obligation de divulgation.
Aaron A. Dhir, professeur associé de droit à la Osgoode Hall Law School de Toronto, présente plusieurs réflexions fort pertinentes sur l’expérience norvégienne d’imposition de quotas pour accroître le nombre de femmes sur les conseils d’administration.
Plusieurs règlementations se sont inspirées de cette approche pour prendre en compte cette variable fondamentale. La conclusion de l’auteur au sujet de cette première approche réglementaire est résumée de la façon suivante :
My study of the Norwegian quota model demonstrates the important role diversity can play in enhancing the quality of corporate governance, while also revealing the challenges diversity mandates pose.
En ce qui concerne l’approche basée sur l’obligation de divulgation des mesures de diversité adoptée par la Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), il appert que la règle ne donne aucune définition de la diversité et que les entreprises peuvent l’interpréter comme bon leur semble.
L’étude montre cependant que les organisations ont tendance à définir la diversité de manière très large, notamment en faisant référence à l’expérience antérieure pertinente des administrateurs (qui n’a rien à voir avec les caractéristiques sociodémographiques telles que le genre).
L’auteur avance également que cette réglementation a donné lieu à beaucoup d’efforts de définition de la diversité :
My study shows that “diversity” carries multiple connotations for these firms. My most salient finding, however, is that when interpreting this concept in the absence of regulatory guidance, the dominant corporate discourse is experiential rather than identity-based. Firms most frequently define diversity with reference to a director’s prior experience or other non-identity-based factors rather than his or her socio-demographic characteristics. The data provide a unique window into the potential meanings of “diversity” in the corporate governance setting, as well as the limits of a strategy that permits corporations to give the term their own definition.
L’auteur nous incite à lire les chapitres 1, 4 et 6 qui ont été publiés sur le réseau SSRN (Social Science Research Network). Le chapitre 1 présente l’objet de l’étude, la méthodologie, les deux variables étudiées, les résultats sommaires et les perspectives futures eu égard au débat sur la diversité.
The lack of gender parity in the governance of business corporations has ignited a heated global debate, leading policymakers to wrestle with difficult questions that lie at the intersection of market activity and social identity politics. In my new book, Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity: Corporate Law, Governance, and Diversity (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming in 2015), I draw on semi-structured interviews with corporate board directors in Norway and documentary content analysis of corporate securities filings in the United States to investigate empirically two distinct regulatory models designed to address diversity in the boardroom—quotas and disclosure.
In Chapter 4, recently made available on SSRN, I explore the quota-based approach to achieving gender balance in corporate boardrooms. Quotas and related target-based measures for publicly traded firms are currently in place in a number of countries, including Iceland, Belgium, France, Italy, and Norway and are at different stages of consideration in other jurisdictions, including Canada, the European Union, and Germany.
I present findings from my qualitative, interview-based study of Norwegian corporate directors in order to provide empirical elucidation of how quota-based regimes operate in practice. The identity narratives of Norwegian board members offer particularly rich sources of insight, given that Norway was the first jurisdiction to pursue the quota path and thus has the most mature quota regime. While highly contentious when adopted, the Norwegian quota project unquestionably set the stage for subsequent legislative developments in other countries.
I delve into the lived experiences of Norwegian directors who gained appointments as a result of Norway’s quota law, as well as those who held appointments before the law was enacted. Several questions frame my investigation. How have these individuals subjectively experienced, and made sense of, this intrusive form of regulation? How does legally required gender diversity affect their economic and institutional lives? And how has it shaped boardroom cultural dynamics and decision making, as well as the overall governance fabric of the board?
The forced repopulation of boards along gender lines has disturbed the traditional order of corporate governance systems, dislocating established hierarchies of power in key market-based institutions. Norway represents the paradigmatic case of this disturbance and has set in motion a wave of corporate governance reform unlike any other. As such, it constitutes a fascinating and appropriate case study through which to consider the implications of quota regimes. My study of the Norwegian quota model demonstrates the important role diversity can play in enhancing the quality of corporate governance, while also revealing the challenges diversity mandates pose.
In Chapter 6, also recently made available on SSRN, I explore the disclosure-based approach to addressing diversity in corporate governance. In 2009, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a rule requiring publicly traded firms to report on whether they consider diversity in identifying director nominees and, if so, how. The rule also requires firms that have adopted a diversity policy to describe how they implement the policy and assess its effectiveness. The rule does not define “diversity,” however, leaving it to corporations to give this term meaning.
I present findings from my mixed-methods content analysis of corporate disclosures submitted during the first four years of the rule in order to provide empirical elucidation of how the rule operates in practice. The research sample consists of a hand-collected dataset of the 2010–2013 definitive proxy statements of S&P 100 firms. I am interested in learning how these firms, in responding to the rule, construct the concept of diversity through their public discourse. What does diversity, viewed through the prism of legal regulation, mean to market participants? How do they interpret and understand this socio-political idea in the absence of a regulatory definition? How is diversity constituted and discursively performed?
The SEC’s disclosure rule has caused US corporations to establish a vocabulary of diversity. My study shows that “diversity” carries multiple connotations for these firms. My most salient finding, however, is that when interpreting this concept in the absence of regulatory guidance, the dominant corporate discourse is experiential rather than identity-based. Firms most frequently define diversity with reference to a director’s prior experience or other nonidentity-based factors rather than his or her socio-demographic characteristics. The data provide a unique window into the potential meanings of “diversity” in the corporate governance setting, as well as the limits of a strategy that permits corporations to give the term their own definition.
Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity aims to deepen ongoing policy conversations and offer new insights into the role law can play in reshaping the gendered dynamics of corporate governance cultures. The full version of Chapter 1 is available for download here.
Vous trouverez ci-dessous un article de Lucy P. Marcus*, experte en gouvernance, qui présente, de manière vulgarisée, en quoi consiste le travail des administrateurs de sociétés aujourd’hui.
On y trouvera une bonne définition des responsabilités des administrateurs ainsi qu’une métaphore intéressante qui montre comment le travail des administrateurs a considérablement changé au cours des vingt dernières années.
L’auteure distingue entre les activités qui sont de nature « grounding » (connaissances de bases de la performance et des obligations de conformité) et celles, toujours plus importantes, qui sont de l’ordre du « stargazing » (la vision à long terme et la stratégie).
Je vous invite à lire ce bref article qui tient lieu de notions de gouvernance 101 !
The boardroom is changing at a fast pace. The agenda items we discuss, the expectations of board directors and the responsibility we hold are all areas that are going through a much needed, and, in my experience, a very welcome, transition.
When my son was around 5 years old, I was preparing for a board meeting and he asked what that was and what I was going to do there.
Lucy P. Marcus*, experte en gouvernance
That’s a question many adults have, too. What, exactly, is a board and what does a board director do?
Searching for an explanation, I finally went with this: « You know about King Arthur and the Round Table? Well, like King Arthur and the Round Table, a group of wise people gather together every month or so. We sit around a table and talk about what the people we are helping have been doing and what they are planning to do next. We try to make sure they are acting honourably and following the law and doing what is best for everyone. »
He seemed fairly satisfied with that answer, but it got me thinking — was the metaphor apt? Is that really what directors are doing in practice?
It does seem sometimes like the board is an arcane and distant body. A caricature would be one where the doors open with a whoosh to reveal suited people sitting around a table in an oak panelled room, having confidential discussions in hushed tones, drawing on deep expertise and thinking big thoughts. And of course, those discussions would be spoken in a special « thee and thou » language.
There are parts of that caricature which do ring true. We board directors generally do sit around a table, and I’d like to think we generally have robust discussions. Strangely, we do often speak in formal ways, referring to “Mr Chairman” and the like. As for the “deep expertise” and “big thoughts” part, I’m not sure we are always well equipped with enough information to make decisions.
Changes afoot
The boardroom is changing at a fast pace. The agenda items we discuss, the expectations of board directors and the responsibility we hold are all areas that are going through a much needed, and, in my experience, a very welcome, transition.
Board agendas used to be rigid and mostly focused on traditional oversight topics such as compensation and compliance. That mandate has grown to include a great deal more.
To better understand the changes and how they affect our job as directors, it is useful to think of the tasks and the agenda items of the board as being broadly divided into a balance of what I call “grounding” and “stargazing”.
The “grounding” side consists of what you might think of as the tick-boxing items: questions around the structure and performance of the organisation in the “here and now”. Is it behaving legally and responsibly? Is it following the rules and regulations? Are its financial accounts in good order? Does it meet to the expectations not just of its shareholders but also of other stakeholders in the broader ecosystem in which it operates?
The “stargazing” side is about strategy. This is the essence of what and where the organisation wants to be in the future. It is about asking questions about how the sector is changing and how the organisation plans to grow. It is also about challenging it to make the necessary changes as the world around it changes too, and to be a driver of positive change. It is about building innovation and a sense of excitement about the future into the DNA.
The old agendas were heavily weighted towards the “grounding” side of the equation, but today, a good balance of “grounding” and “stargazing” is vital to preparing the organisation for the future. The board must look closely at the here and now, making sure everything is working correctly; otherwise we run the risk of missing signs of everything from neglect to malfeasance. We must also look into the next 10 to 15 years to make sure that the organisation has a robust future to look forward to.
Responsibilities increase
The world around us has changed at an exponential pace. Companies are seen as having a greater responsibility for the role they play in the health and well-being of society. They also bear some responsibility for the individuals that they touch, be it employees, partners, or people who live in the community. At the same time, social media and niche publications amplify the voices of shareholders, communities and consumers. Also, boards and companies no longer operate in a black box — with the advent of everything from Twitter to Google Earth, there is more transparency than ever before.
Partly as a consequence of these changes in the boardroom and beyond, the responsibilities and expectations of directors, particularly independent directors, have increased exponentially. It is not sufficient to skim the board papers, ask a couple of superficial questions, eat the lovely meal, and be on your merry way home.
Board directors are now, rightly, expected to read the papers, come prepared, and ask the tough questions. Though the boardroom has traditionally been a black box room, much has changed. Individual directors will increasingly find themselves being held to account for the choices that they have made in the boardroom in many areas, be it around executive compensation or “innovative” tax strategies.
It means that we as directors must be more diligent and make sure we are only voting ‘yes’ for things when we have a thorough understanding of what the implications of the ‘yes’ is — both now and in the longer term. We must take into account those whose lives are impacted directly, such as people who work for the company and those who live in the area where the company sits, as well as the people who use the company’s products and services. It also about those who are impacted indirectly, such as shareholders whose life savings may be at stake. Those are all positives, in my view.
In the end, if we are to live up to the ideal of King Arthur and the Round Table, chivalrous knights who are guided by the ideals of courtesy, courage, and honour, we must ask ourselves every time we gather, “Why are we here and who do we serve?” so that the decisions we take are made wisely and judiciously, not only to serve the needs of the few, but to ensure that we help the organisation to live up to its potential, and do so in an honourable way.
Je partage avec vous un récent article que Denis Lefort, expert conseil en gouvernance et audit interne, m’a fait parvenir, accompagné de ses commentaires.
Cet article de Mike Jacka* est paru dans Internal Auditor Magazine. Toute personne préoccupée par l’importance de cette fonction devrait prendre connaissance de cette mise en garde.
« En lisant ce bref article, vous saisirez rapidement que son auteur est d’avis que l’audit interne et les autres fonctions d’assurance des organisations (gestion des risques, conformité, sécurité et autres) sont entrées dans une guerre de juridiction… Et que l’audit interne ne peut agir comme si elle était comme la Suisse, neutre et inattaquable…!!!
L’auteur est ainsi d’avis que l’audit interne doit préparer à la fois sa stratégie de défense et d’attaque pour contrer les coups durs présents et à venir… »
The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation recently posted an interesting piece titled « Compliance or Legal? The Board’s Duty to Assure Compliance. » I know it all sounds a little boring, but trust me on this one — there is interesting information here. Take some time to read through it before we dive in.
(One very quick, very important aside. I came across this article as a part of The IIA’s SmartBrief — a weekly « snapshot » of news and issues internal auditors might care about. To receive the newsletter you must « opt in. » I cannot urge you enough to opt in. No puffery here. Seldom does a week go by where I don’t find at least one nugget I can use. If you aren’t receiving it, you can opt in here.)
If you have been paying attention to the discussions that are going on regarding internal audit’s evolving role you were probably gobsmacked by the similarities between those discussions and what is being said in this article. Take the opening sentence: « A series of developments threaten to blur the important distinction between the corporation’s legal and compliance functions. » Make a few changes and you are talking about the dilemma internal audit is facing. « A series of developments threaten to blur the important distinction between the organization’s internal audit department and [insert your favorite assurance provider’s name here]. »
There it is in a nutshell, the crux of the battle currently being waged over the role of internal audit and others within the organization.
Wait, let’s back up a second. Did you miss that there is a war going on? Let’s take a quick look.
I have a good friend who is a CAE. In that role he is also in charge of risk management. We often talk about the potential conflict that exists with those dual roles. He is not alone. I have talked with other audit leaders who are being approached about audit taking on the role of risk. Not a bad fit. We are risk experts, we have the communication and relationship skills, and there should be a definite meshing of gears between audit and risk.
On the other hand, I have also heard from others who face the opposite issue; they are under pressure to have internal audit placed under the jurisdiction of the risk officer. « Wait a minute, » you say, « That is a very bad idea: a serious problem, a conflict of interests, a subversion of our objectivity, an invasion on our independence. » Our list of reasons why this shouldn’t happen is quite long.
When the shoe is on the other foot the bunions become just a tad more obvious.
And it is not just the risk function. While not as common, I am hearing similar discussions around such functions as compliance, corporate security, finance, quality assurance, and, yes, even legal. In some cases the discussion is around audit taking on part of the role; in others it is about audit becoming a part of the other function.
Why are we suddenly seeing this land grab?
Governance has become an important topic at the executive and board level. (Definitely a good thing.) Assurance providers (compliance, legal, risk, et al) realize the way to raise the esteem with which the board and executives hold them is to take on a greater piece of the governance pie. The pushing and shoving starts. Escalation ensues. And we find ourselves in the midst of a jurisdictional war.
And while internal audit would like to believe we are above the fray (we are independent, we are objective, we are internal audit, hear us roar), unless we recognize the existence of this war — unless we are willing to take up arms and join in the fray — we will find ourselves trivialized, the core values we provide handed off to the victors.
We think we are Switzerland. But there is no such thing as neutrality in this battle.
So, with that background, let’s return to the article previously referenced. The contents provide a good indication of the type of arguments internal audit will encounter. Two examples:
The author states that a forced separation of compliance from under legal would jeopardize the ability of the organization to preserve attorney-client privilege. Cold chills went up my spine as I read this. I still vividly recall similar debates from 20 years ago when the legal department argued they should have more direct control over internal audit in order to preserve attorney-client privilege. We won. But it is obvious that the ugly head of that particular argument continues to rise again and again.
The article quotes compliance thought leaders as saying that the role of « guardian of corporate reputation » is exclusively reserved for the corporate compliance officer; that the compliance officer is the organizational « subject matter expert » for ethics and culture. The author of the article states that this is « contrary to long standing public discourse that frames the lawyer’s role as a primary guardian of the organizational reputation. » My first, knee-jerk reaction is that internal audit should be the guardian of reputation and the subject matter expert. But once I put my knee back where it belongs, I realize it is probably more true that the attempt to define any one department as guardian or expert is a fool’s game. Everyone with any governance role should have the protection of reputation, ethics, and culture as their No. 1 responsibility.
There is much more in the article and many more thoughtful and reasoned arguments. And it would be quite easy to say « Let them duke it out. Their arguments are not important to us. » However, that is exactly why we should be paying attention. The article contains the points that will be used in the battle — points to be used against us and points we can use in our defense.
We are in a war. And audit cannot sit back and say, « We have independence; we are safe and above the fray. » No. They will have an eye on our « turf, » also. And who’s to say that some of their turf shouldn’t be ours. I’m not saying we break out the bayonets and start going after some of the unwounded, but I am saying we have to recognize the existence of a battle and be willing to take a stand — be willing to say what it is we do, why it is important, and why we should have those responsibilities.
What are your thoughts? What is internal audit’s role regarding the organization’s approach to risk, governance, compliance, legal, etc.? If we are more involved, is there a conflict? If the lines blur, does it have a negative impact on the company? Is there really a war brewing? And what might this have to do with the future (if there is going to be a future) of internal audit?
_____________________________________
*Mike Jacka, CIA, CPA, CPCU, CLU, worked in internal audit for nearly 30 years at Farmers Insurance Group.
Voici le point de vue de l’auteure Claire Linton-Evans*, paru dans le Sydney Morning Herald récemment, à propos des pratiques de benchmarking, largement utilisées dans le domaine de la sélection et de la rémunération.
Ces méthodes ont du succès parce qu’elles sont utiles, autant aux employés qui tentent de se situer parmi leurs pairs, qu’aux entreprises qui comptent sur ces mesures pour recruter et rémunérer les employés-cadres.
L’auteure montre que cette approche peut conduire à toute sorte d’aberrations et d’iniquités car les titres des emplois et leurs salaires peuvent varier considérablement selon les situations. Elle donne également lieu à une inflation des rémunérations car aucune entreprise ne souhaite recruter un employé « moyen » !
Mme Linton-Evans affirme que l’approche peut cependant être utile au niveau gouvernemental car les emplois sont spécifiés très rigoureusement et ils jouissent de descriptions uniformes d’un secteur à un autre, permettant ainsi de faire des comparaisons sensées.
Dans tous les cas, les organisations devraient considérer d’autres facteurs pour établir la rémunération.
Je vous invite à prendre connaissance de ce cours article. Quelles sont vos expériences avec le benchmarking ? Bonne lecture !
For decades benchmarking has been the private sector’s employment solution, forcing candidates into salary bands the way square pegs fit into round holes – often by shaving off some sides. Published by industry bodies and recruitment firms after surveying multiple companies, these annual benchmarking studies attempt to explain what salary range a role (usually by job title) is paid within each industry.
Cleverly marketed, they have been popular for so long because the data « benefits » two client segments: the employees and companies. Employees are told to use the range to ascertain their market value, while firms use the data to budget for new roles, with a level of comfort that they are in step with what the market is paying. However, as anyone who has interviewed or recruited recently knows, benchmarking is becoming increasingly unreliable.
Using salary benchmarks is dangerous for both the companies that rely on it to recruit and for executives who expect to be paid within a range. Some companies give benchmarking a cursory glance at budget time. Other companies absurdly state publicly and proudly that they pay only « up to the 75th percentile » of the industry’s benchmark, a declaration that rarely attracts top talent (nor motivates their existing employees).
By evaluating a candidate and their eligibility for a role on salary rather than experience, these businesses often remove the most qualified candidates from the process, and it’s these companies that employees should be wary of. The tip-off? The « What is your current salary/salary expectation? » question which will be often one of the first questions in the screening interview.
I was reminded of this recently when an old colleague shared his dismay after commencing a senior role in the software industry. It had been a delicate hiring process because the previous manager of the division had held the title of executive general manager…and before this had been the executive assistant! It was a classic and all too common case of a company that used a job title to reward an under-skilled employee, who didn’t have the experience of an EGM and wasn’t being paid the salary of a senior manager either. Obviously, this person couldn’t perform the role and my colleague was hired to fix the problem. So, if this company was involved with a salary benchmarking survey, what did their figures do to pull the average salary of a software EGM down?
And that’s exactly where the concept of benchmarking becomes redundant – job titles and salaries can vary wildly from employee to employee, company to company and situation to situation. Benchmarking them on the criteria of industry, title and salary is not enough for companies to use as a mandatory remuneration guide. The best and most in demand employees will expect to be paid well above a salary band they know has been derived from a motley crew of industry peers. They will know what their value is and wait for an educated employer to offer them an attractive salary. Moreover, successful companies are more aware than ever that their people create their competitive advantage and by offering a salary that is not competitive, they can’t expect their people to stick around.
Where salary benchmarking is successful is within the Government. Generally departments work on strict salary bands aligned to job codes. This works well because they are limited by budgets set annually, and they vigilantly hire employees into strict bands and titles. Given the number of variables in the private sector, the concept isn’t vaguely relatable, which is why salary benchmarking should be an interesting, but never a deciding factor these days in the hiring process.
______________________________________________
*Claire Linton-Evans is a senior executive and author of the career bible for modern women, Climbing the Ladder in Heels – How to Succeed in the Career Game of Snakes and Ladders.
Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés est heureux de vous dévoiler sa 3e série de capsules d’experts, formée de huit entrevues vidéo.
Pendant 3 minutes, un expert du Collège partage une réflexion et se prononce sur un sujet d’actualité lié à la gouvernance. Une capsule est dévoilée chaque semaine.
Aujourd’hui, je vous propose le visionnement des deux plus récentes capsules d’experts qui sont maintenant en ligne. Elles ont pour thèmes « La diversité » par Mme Nicolle Forget, administratrice de sociétés, et « La gestion des risques » par M. Martin Leblanc, CA, CMC, Associé, Services-conseils – Management et Gestion des risques, KPMG.
Que peut faire un actionnaire ou un investisseur pour évaluer la compétence d’un conseil d’administration et se former une opinion sur l’efficacité de son rôle de fiduciaire ?
Voici un article, publié par la rédaction d’Investopedia,qui présente un checklist en cinq points, simple mais fort utile, pour mieux savoir quoi regarder dans la documentation publique.
Bien sûr, votre évaluation ne sera pas nécessairement concluante mais je suis assuré que si vous portez une attention spéciale aux 5 éléments présentés ci-dessous, vous aurez une bien meilleure appréciation des qualités du conseil et de ses administrateurs.
Quels autres facteurs considérez-vous dans l’évaluation des compétences d’un Board ? Bonne lecture !
In theory, the board is responsible to the shareholders and is supposed to govern a company’s management. But in many instances, the board has become a servant of the chief executive officer (CEO), who is typically also the chairman of the board. The role of the board of directors has increasingly come under scrutiny in light of corporate scandals such as those at Enron, WorldCom and HealthSouth, in which the board of directors failed to act in investors’ best interests. Although the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made corporations more accountable, investors should still pay attention to what a corporation’s board of directors is up to. Here we’ll show you what the board of directors can tell you about how a company is being run.
The Checklist According to an October 27, 2003, Wall Street Journal article, a checklist was developed by the Corporate Library to help investors evaluate the objectivity and effectiveness of a board. According to this checklist, investors should examine:
1. Size of the Board
There is no universal agreement on the optimum size of a board of directors. A large number of members represents a challenge in terms of using them effectively and/or having any kind of meaningful individual participation. According to the Corporate Library’s study, the average board size is 9.2 members, and most boards range from 3 to 31 members. Some analysts think the ideal size is seven.
In addition, there are two critical board committees that must be made up of independent members:
The minimum number for each committee is three. This means that a minimum of six board members is needed so that no one is on more than one committee. Having members doing double duty may compromise the important wall between audit and compensation, which helps avoid any conflicts of interest. Members serving on a number of other boards may not devote adequate time to their responsibilities.
The seventh member is the chairperson of the board. It’s the responsibility of the chairperson to make sure the board is functioning properly and the CEO is fulfilling his or her duty and following the directives of the board. A conflict of interest is created if the CEO is also the chairperson of the board.
To staff any additional committees, such as nominating or governance, additional people may be necessary. However, having more than nine members may make the board too big to function effectively. (For background reading, see The Basics Of Corporate Structure.)
2. The Degree of Independence: Insiders and Outsiders
A key attribute of an effective board is that it is comprised of a majority of independent outsiders. While not necessarily true, a board with a majority of insiders is often viewed as being stacked with sycophants, especially in cases where the CEO is also the chairman of the board.
An outsider is someone who has never worked at the company, is not related to any of the key employees and has never worked for a major supplier, customer or service provider, such as lawyers, accountants, consultants, investment bankers, etc. While this definition of independent outsiders is clear, you’d be surprised at the number of times it is misapplied. Too often, the « outsider » label is given to the retired CEO or a relative when that person is actually an insider with conflicts of interest.The Wall Street Journal article found that independent outsiders made up 66% of all boards and 72% of Standard & Poor’s (S&P) boards. The larger the number of outside board members the better. This makes the board more independent and allows it to provide a higher level of corporate governance to shareholders, particularly if the position of chairman of the board is separated from the CEO and is held by an outsider.
3. Committees
There are four important board committees: executive, audit, compensation and nominating. There may be more committees depending on corporate philosophy, which is determined by an ethics committee and special circumstances relating to a particular company’s line of business. Let’s take a closer look at the four main committees:
The Executive Committee
The executive committee, is made up of a small number of board members that are readily accessible and easily convened, to decide on matters subject to board consideration but must be decided on expeditiously, such as a quarterly meeting. Executive committee proceedings are always reported to and reviewed by the full board. Just as with the full board, investors should prefer that independent directors make up the majority of an executive committee.
The Audit Committee
The audit committee works with the auditors to make sure that the books are correct and that there are no conflicts of interest between the auditors and the other consulting firms employed by the company. Ideally, the chair of the audit committee is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Often, a CPA is not on the audit committee, let alone on the board. The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) requires that the audit committee include a financial expert, but this qualification is typically met by a retired banker, even though that person’s ability to catch fraud may be questionable. The audit committee should meet at least four times a year in order to review the most recent audit. An additional meeting should be held if there are other issues that need to be addressed
The Compensation Committee.
The compensation committee is responsible for setting the pay of top executives. It seems obvious that the CEO or other people with conflicts of interest should not be on this committee, but you’d be surprised at the number of companies that allow just that. It is important to check if the members of the compensation board are also on the compensation committees of other firms because of the potential conflict of interest. The compensation committee should meet at least twice a year. Having only one meeting may be a sign that the committee meets just to approve a pay package that was created by the CEO or a consultant without much debate. (To learn more, read Evaluating Executive Compensation.)
The Nominating Committee
This committee is responsible for nominating people to the board. The nomination process should aim to bring on people with independence and a skill set currently lacking on the board.M
4. Other Commitments and Time Constraints
The number of boards and committees a board member is on is a key consideration when judging the effectiveness of a member.
The following chart from the survey shows the time commitments of board members of the 1,700 largest U.S. public companies according the the study’s 2003 data. This indicates that the majority of board members sit on no more than three boards. What this data does not specify is the number of committees to which these people belong.
You’ll often find that independent board members serve on both the audit and compensation committees and are also on three or more other boards. You have to wonder how much time a board member can devote to a company’s business if the person is on multiple boards. This situation also raises questions about the supply of independent outside directors. Are these people pulling double duty because there’s a lack of qualified outsiders?
5. Related Transactions
Companies must disclose any transactions with executives and directors in a financial note entitled « Related Transactions. » This discloses actions or relationships that cause conflicts of interest, such as doing business with a director’s company or having relatives of the CEO receiving professional fees from the company.
The Bottom Line
The composition and performance of a board of directors says a lot about its responsibilities to a company’s shareholders. A board loses credibility if its objectivity and independence are compromised by material shortcomings in this checklist. Investors are poorly served by substandard governance practices.
Ici, en Amérique du Nord, on entend quelquefois parler des distinctions entre le modèle de gouvernance européen et le modèle de gouvernance à l’américaine. Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, une brève synthèse des particularités des modèles de gouvernance européens eu égard à la distinction one tier/two tier systèmes de gouvernance.
Cette conclusions est basée sur une recherche de type « Benchmarking » conduite par ecoDa* (The European Confederation of Directors Associations) auprès de ses membres des Instituts de gouvernance européens ainsi qu’auprès d’autres membres non-européens, tel que le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS).
À la suite de l’extrait présentant les grandes lignes de ces modèles de gouvernance, vous trouverez un portrait plus précis des principales différences entre les deux systèmes, dont les deux plus représentatifs (UK, One Tier; Allemagne, Two Tier).
Bonne lecture !
Although the European Union tries to undermine the differences, the corporate law and corporate governance is highly diversified throughout Europe, embedded in a long history of specific societal and economic approaches towards the organisation of the business world, aligning governance with these quite different societal priorities.
In the two tier system, supervisory board members control the strategy but don’t define it. In the two tier system, there is also a clear cut between management and control responsibilities. In the one tier system, the board governs the company e. g. controls the direction, defines the strategic options and can address any issues related to the performance of the company.
People advocating for the two tier model always point out that having distance between management and oversight creates independence that makes sense. People defending the one-tier system consider that having executives and non-executives on the same board provides a better flow of information and helps to overcome problems that boards can face in understanding what is going on in the company. The one-tier system would also enable the non-executive to see how executive operate together as a team. The non-executive would be more involved in forward-looking of the strategy. As a downside effect of the one tier system, it is difficult for non-executives to draw distinction between monitoring and oversight.
The one tier system is often seen as an English model while the two-tier system is more of a German style. But the reality is more complex than that over the different countries in the European Union. The Nordic Corporate Governance (CG) model is quite unique with a strictly hierarchical governance structure and a direct chain of command among the general meeting, the board and the CEO. The Italian CG model is also special with the distinction between the managing body (sole administrator or, in the collective form of a board of directors) and the controlling organ (so called “board of statutory auditors”)
One-tier board system
Two-tier board system
Organisation
A single board.
A supervisory body and a management body.
Composition
Mixed, executive and non-executive directors may serve on the board.
Separate, executive and non-executive directors serve on separate boards (i.e., a supervisory board composed exclusively of non-executive directors and a management board composed exclusively of executive directors).
Organisation
Unitary
Binary
Committees
Mandatory or recommendedSupervisory and advisory committees(Mandatory) oversight and advisory committees such as the audit committee, the remuneration committee and the nomination (appointments) committee, composed of a majority of non-executive directors, one or more of whom must be independent.Supervisory committee
Optional committee entrusted with supervising the company, composed of both executive and non-executive directors.
Usually differs slightly from a true supervisory board (as found in the two-tier system) in terms of powers, composition and role.
Mostly found in countries which present characteristics of a one-tier system while incorporating certain features of a two-tier system.
OptionalHistorically not required but oversight and advisory committees are increasingly important in the two-tier system as well.
Roles
Board of directorsManagerial roleDirection and executive actsDecision-taking, management and oversightPerformance enhancement
Supervisory role
Accountability
Strategic and financial oversight
Management boardManagerial roleDirection and executive actsDecision-taking and managementPerformance enhancement
Service and strategic role
Supervisory board
Supervisory role
Accountability
Decision-taking and oversight
Monitoring role
Strategic and financial oversight
CEO duality
Allowed.The same person can serve as both CEO and chair of the board of directors (although this is generally not recommended by corporate governance practices).
Restricted.No CEO duality (although the CEO can sometimes be a member or attend meetings of the supervisory board.)
Executive directors
Appointed by the general meeting of shareholders, based on a proposal by the board or appointments committee (if any).A director may be appointed by the board of directors when the term of office of another director comes to an end, in order to prevent the board from being paralyzed, for example if the board no longer has a sufficient number of members as required by law or the articles (co-optation procedure).The appointment of a co-opted director must be confirmed at the first general meeting of shareholders following his or her appointment.
Appointed by the supervisory board or the general meeting of shareholders, based on a proposal by the board or the appointments committee (if there is one).
Non-Executive (supervisory directors)
Idem.
Appointed by the general meeting of shareholders or, based on a proposal by the supervisory board or the appointments committee (if there is one).
Conflicts perspective
Negatively associated with the separation of decision-management and decision-oversight roles due to its composition (a majority of executive directors) and unitary structure.Diffusion of tasks and responsibilities weakens the non-executive directors’ ability to oversee the implementation of decisions, especially where executive and non-executive directors face the same potential legal liability.Higher risk of conflicts of interest between management and shareholders.
To avoid conflicts of interest, it is often recommended that the one-tier board be composed of a majority of non-executive directors, due to (i)
their experience and knowledge, (ii) their contacts, which may enhance management’s ability to secure external resources, and (iii) their independence from the CEO.
In companies which have achieved a certain level of development, risks of conflicts of interest are often reduced through the creation of committees allowing these functions to be segregated. In addition, legal provisions aimed at preventing and resolving conflict of interest exist in most jurisdictions.
Positively associated with the separation of decision-management and decision-oversight roles, due to the composition of the supervisory board (independent directors) which ensures independence and its binary structure.No diffusion of tasks and responsibilities.
Lower risk of conflicts of interest between management and shareholders.
(Dis)advantages
AdvantagesSpirit of partnership and mutual respect between directors, which allows greater interaction amongst all board members.Non-executive directors have more contact with the company itself and are more involved in the decision-making process.Non-executive directors have direct access to information.
Decision-making process is faster.
A lighter administrative burden as only a single management body needs to hold meetings and only a single set of minutes need be drawn up.
Board meetings take place more regularly.
Disadvantages
A single body is entrusted with both managing and supervising the company’s operations.
More difficult to guarantee the independence of board members and there is a greater risk of non-executive directors aligning too much with executive directors.
More liability for non-executive directors.
Advantages Clear distinction between the supervisory and management functions within the company.Clear distinctions of liabilities between the members of the supervisory and management bodies.Supervisory board members are more independent.
Clear separation of the roles of chairman and CEO.
Disadvantages
It is more difficult for directors to build relationships of trust, thereby potentially undermining communication between the two boards.
Supervisory board members only receive limited information (from the management board) and at a later stage (decreased involvement). There is a heightened risk of the supervisory board not discovering shortcomings or discovering them too late.
Decision-making process is delayed due to less frequent supervisory board meetings.
Non-executive directors face several challenges which appear to be typical of the two-tier board model, such as difficulties (i) building relationships of trust, thereby potentially undermining communication and flows of information between the two boards, and (ii) fully understanding and ratifying strategic initiatives by the management board, thereby frustrating the decision-making processes.
_______________________________________________
ecoDa (The European Confederation of Directors Associations) is a not-for-profit association based in Brussels, which acts as the « European voice of directors » and represents around 60,000 board directors from across the European Union (EU) member states. The organisation acts as a forum for debate and public advocacy by influencing the public policy debate at EU level and by promoting appropriate director training, professional development and boardroom best practice.
Lucian Bebchuk, professeur de droit, d’économique et de finance, et directeur des programmes sur la gouvernance corporative à la Harvard law School vient de publier un article très important dans le New York Times.
L’auteur met les investisseurs en garde contre de réels risques de gouvernance liés à l’offre publique d’achat (OPA) de l’entreprise chinoise Alibaba.
Je crois qu’il est utile de mieux comprendre les enjeux de gouvernance avant d’investir dans cette immense OPA.
Wall Street is eagerly watching what is expected to be one of the largest initial public offering in history: the offering of the Chinese Internet retailer Alibaba at the end of this week. Investors have been described by the media as “salivating” and “flooding underwriters with orders.” It is important for investors, however, to keep their eyes open to the serious governance risks accompanying an Alibaba investment.
Several factors combine to create such risks. For one, insiders have a permanent lock on control of the company but hold only a small minority of the equity capital. Then, there are many ways to divert value to affiliated entities, but there are weak mechanisms to prevent this. Consequently, public investors should worry that, over time, a significant amount of the value created by Alibaba would not be shared with them.
In Alibaba, control is going to be locked forever in the hands of a group of insiders known as the Alibaba Partnership. These are all managers in the Alibaba Group or related companies. The Partnership will have the exclusive right to nominate candidates for a majority of the board seats. Furthermore, if the Partnership fails to obtain shareholder approval for its candidates, it will be entitled “in its sole discretion and without the need for any additional shareholder approval” to appoint directors unilaterally, thus ensuring that its chosen directors always have a majority of board seats.
Many public companies around the world, especially in emerging economies, have a large shareholder with a lock on control. Such controlling shareholders, however, often own a substantial portion of the equity capital that provides them with beneficial incentives. In the case of Alibaba, investors need to worry about the relatively small stake held by the members of the controlling Alibaba Partnership.
After the I.P.O., Alibaba’s executive chairman, Jack Ma, is expected to hold 7.8 percent of the shares and all the directors and executive officers will hold together 13.1 percent. Over time, insiders may well cash out some of their current holding, but Alibaba’s governance structure would ensure that directors chosen by the Alibaba Partnership will forever control the board, regardless of the size of the stake held by the Partnership’s members.
With an absolute lock on control and a limited fraction of the equity capital, the Alibaba insiders will have substantial incentives to divert value from Alibaba to other entities in which they own a substantial percentage of the equity. This can be done by placing future profitable opportunities in such entities, or making deals with such entities on terms that favor them at the expense of Alibaba.
Alibaba’s prospectus discloses information about various past “related party transactions,” and these disclosures reflect the significance and risks to public investors of such transactions. For example, in 2010, Alibaba divested its control and ownership of Alipay, which does all of the financial processing for Alibaba, and Alipay is now fully controlled and substantially owned by Alibaba’s executive chairman.
Public investors should worry not only about whether the Alibaba’s divesting of Alipay benefited Mr. Ma at the expense of Alibaba, but also about the terms of the future transactions between Alibaba and Alipay. Because Alibaba relies on Alipay “to conduct substantially all of the payment processing” in its marketplace, these terms are important for Alibaba’s future success.
Mr. Ma owns a larger fraction of Alipay’s equity capital than of Alibaba’s, so he would economically benefit from terms that would disfavor Alibaba. Indeed, given the circumstances, the I.P.O. prospectus acknowledges that Mr. Ma may act to resolve Alibaba-Alipay conflicts not in Alibaba’s favor.
The prospectus seeks to allay investor concerns, however, by indicating that Mr. Ma intends to reduce his stake in in Alipay within three to five years, including by having shares in Alipay granted to Alibaba employees. But stating such an intention does not represent an irreversible legal commitment. Furthermore, transfers of Alipay ownership stakes from Mr. Ma to other members of the Alibaba Partnership would still leave the Partnership’s aggregate interest to be decidedly on the side of Alipay rather than Alibaba.
Given the significant related party transactions that have already taken place, and the prospect of such transactions in the future, Alibaba tried to placate investors by putting in a “new related party transaction policy.” But this new policy hardly provides investors with solid protection. Unlike charter and bylaw provisions, corporate policies are generally not binding. Furthermore, Alibaba’s policy explicitly allows the board, where the nominees of Alibaba partnership will always have a majority, to approve any exceptions to the policy that the board chooses.
Of course, the Alibaba partners might elect not to take advantage of the opportunities for diversion provided to them by Alibaba’s structure. And, even if the partners do use such opportunities, the future business success of Alibaba might be large enough to make up for the costs of diversions and leave public investors with good returns on their investment.
Before jumping in, however, investors rushing to participate in the Alibaba I.P.O. must recognize the substantial governance risks that they would be taking. Alibaba’s structure does not provide adequate protections to public investors.
Voici un article très intéressant de Elliot S. Schreiber* paru sur le blogue de Schreiber | Paris récemment. L’auteur pose une question cruciale pour mieux comprendre la nature et la priorité des interventions organisationnelles.
À quoi le management et le C.A. doivent-ils accorder le plus d’attention : À stratégie ou à la culture de l’organisation ?
L’auteur affirme que la culture, étant l’ADN de l’entreprise, devrait se situer en premier, … avant la stratégie !
Le bref article présenté ci-dessous pose deux questions fondamentales pour connaître si l’entreprise a une culture appropriée :
(1) Does it cost us the same, more or less than competitors to recruit and retain top talent ?
(2) Are customers happy with the relationship they have with our company versus our competition ?
If it costs you more to recruit and retain your best talent or if customers believe that competitors are easier to deal with, you have cultural issues that need to be dealt with. We can guarantee that if you do not, you will not execute your strategy successfully, no matter what else you do.
Ce point de vue correspond-il à votre réalité ? Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus. Bonne lecture !
Peter Drucker famously stated “culture eats strategy for breakfast”. A great quote no doubt and quite right, but it still raises the question – one that we recently got from a board member at a client organization – “which should we work on first, strategy or culture”?
Consider the following; you are driving a boat. You want to head east, but every time you turn the wheel the boat goes south. In this analogy, the course direction is strategy; the boat’s rudder is culture. They are not in synch. No matter how hard you turn the wheel, the rudder will win. That is what Drucker meant.
Every organization has a culture, whether it was intentionally developed or not. This culture gets built over time by the personalities and principles of the leaders, as well as by rewards, incentives, processes and procedures that let people know what really is valued in the company.
Culture is defined as “the way we do things around here every day and allow them to be done”. Employees look to their leaders to determine what behaviors are truly values, as well as to the rewards, incentives, processes and procedures that channel behaviors.
Executives we work with often get confused about culture, thinking that they need to duplicate the companies that are written up in publications as having the best cultures. We all know the ones in these listings. They are the ones with skate ramps, Friday beer parties, and day care centers. All these things are nice, but there is no need to duplicate these unless you are attempting to recruit the same employees and create the same products and services. No two companies, even those in the same market segment, need to have the same culture.
We know from discussions with other consultants and business executives that there are many who strongly believe that culture comes first. What they suggest is that since culture is there—it is the DNA of the company—it comes before strategy. It may be first in historical order, but that is not what matters. You don’t need pool tables and skate ramps like Google to have a good culture. What matters with culture is whether or not it drives or undermines value creation, which comes from the successful interaction of employees and customers.
…..
____________________________________
* Elliot S. Schreiber, Ph.D., is the founding Chairman of Schreiber Paris. He has gained a reputation among both corporate executives and academics as one of the world’s most knowledgeable and insightful business and market strategists. Elliot is recognized as an expert in organizational alignment, strategy execution and risk management. He is a co-founder in 2003 of the Directors College, acknowledged as Canada’s « gold standard » for director education.
Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés est heureux de vous dévoiler sa 3e série de capsules d’experts, formée de huit entrevues vidéos. Pendant 3 minutes, un expert du Collège partage une réflexion et se prononce sur un sujet d’actualité lié à la gouvernance. Une capsule sera dévoilée chaque semaine.
Deux nouvelles « capsules d’experts » sont maintenant en ligne; elles ont pour thèmes « Les médias sociaux » par M. Sylvain Lafrance, ASC, professeur au HEC Montréal et consultant en communications et « La planification stratégique » par M. Dominic Deneault, ASC , Trebora Conseil.
Aujourd’hui, je veux vous faire partager le point de vue de Martin Lipton*, expert dans les questions de fusion et d’acquisition ainsi que dans les affaires se rapportant à la gouvernance des entreprises, sur les enjeux des C.A.. L’auteur met l’accent sur les pratiques exemplaires en gouvernance et sur les comportements attendus des conseils d’administration.
Ce texte, paru sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance,résume très bien les devoirs et les responsabilités des administrateurs de sociétés de nos jours et renforce la nécessité, pour les conseils d’administration, de gérer les situations d’offres hostiles.
Bonne lecture ! Êtes-vous d’accord avec les attentes énoncées ? Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
The ever evolving challenges facing corporate boards prompts an updated snapshot of what is expected from the board of directors of a major public company—not just the legal rules, but also the aspirational “best practices” that have come to have almost as much influence on board and company behavior.
Boards are expected to:
Establish the appropriate “Tone at the Top” to actively cultivate a corporate culture that gives high priority to ethical standards, principles of fair dealing, professionalism, integrity, full compliance with legal requirements and ethically sound strategic goals.
Choose the CEO, monitor his or her performance and have a succession plan in case the CEO becomes unavailable or fails to meet performance expectations.
Maintain a close relationship with the CEO and work with management to encourage entrepreneurship, appropriate risk taking, and investment to promote the long-term success of the company (despite the constant pressures for short-term performance) and to navigate the dramatic changes in domestic and world-wide economic, social and political conditions. Approve the company’s annual operating plan and long-term strategy, monitor performance and provide advice to management as a strategic partner.
Develop an understanding of shareholder perspectives on the company and foster long-term relationships with shareholders, as well as deal with the requests of shareholders for meetings to discuss governance and the business portfolio and operating strategy. Evaluate the demands of corporate governance activists, make changes that the board believes will improve governance and resist changes that the board believes will not be constructive. Work with management and advisors to review the company’s business and strategy, with a view toward minimizing vulnerability to attacks by activist hedge funds.
Organize the business, and maintain the collegiality, of the board and its committees so that each of the increasingly time-consuming matters that the board and board committees are expected to oversee receives the appropriate attention of the directors.
Plan for and deal with crises, especially crises where the tenure of the CEO is in question, where there has been a major disaster or a risk management crisis, or where hard-earned reputation is threatened by a product failure or a socio-political issue. Many crises are handled less than optimally because management and the board have not been proactive in planning to deal with crises, and because the board cedes control to outside counsel and consultants.
Determine executive compensation to achieve the delicate balance of enabling the company to recruit, retain and incentivize the most talented executives, while also avoiding media and populist criticism of “excessive” compensation and taking into account the implications of the “say-on-pay” vote.
Face the challenge of recruiting and retaining highly qualified directors who are willing to shoulder the escalating work load and time commitment required for board service, while at the same time facing pressure from shareholders and governance advocates to embrace “board refreshment”, including issues of age, length of service, independence, gender and diversity. Provide compensation for directors that fairly reflects the significantly increased time and energy that they must now spend in serving as board and board committee members. Evaluate the board’s performance, and the performance of the board committees and each director.
Determine the company’s reasonable risk appetite (financial, safety, cyber, political, reputation, etc.), oversee the implementation by management of state-of-the-art standards for managing risk, monitor the management of those risks within the parameters of the company’s risk appetite and seek to ensure that necessary steps are taken to foster a culture of risk-aware and risk-adjusted decision-making throughout the organization.
Oversee the implementation by management of state-of-the-art standards for compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, monitor compliance and respond appropriately to “red flags.”
Take center stage whenever there is a proposed transaction that creates a real or perceived conflict between the interests of stockholders and those of management, including takeovers and attacks by activist hedge funds focused on the CEO.
Recognize that shareholder litigation against the company and its directors is part of modern corporate life and should not deter the board from approving a significant acquisition or other material transaction, or rejecting a merger proposal or a hostile takeover bid, all of which is within the business judgment of the board.
Set high standards of social responsibility for the company, including human rights, and monitor performance and compliance with those standards.
Oversee relations with government, community and other constituents.
Review corporate governance guidelines and committee charters and tailor them to promote effective board functioning.
To meet these expectations, it will be necessary for major public companies
(1) to have a sufficient number of directors to staff the requisite standing and special committees and to meet expectations for diversity;
(2) to have directors who have knowledge of, and experience with, the company’s businesses, even if this results in the board having more than one director who is not “independent”;
(3) to have directors who are able to devote sufficient time to preparing for and attending board and committee meetings;
(4) to provide the directors with regular tutorials by internal and external experts as part of expanded director education; and
(5) to maintain a truly collegial relationship among and between the company’s senior executives and the members of the board that enhances the board’s role both as strategic partner and as monitor.
________________________________________________
* Martin Lipton is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy
Michael Evans, l’auteur de ce court article publié dans Forbes, montre les nombreux avantages des entreprises (jeunes, petites, familiales, entrepreneuriales …) à recruter un ou quelques administrateurs externes au conseil d’administration.
Les administrateurs externes doivent être judicieusement choisis afin de compter sur leurs expériences du domaine d’affaires ainsi que sur leurs capacités à exposer plus de perspective et de vision.
L’auteur présente également les quatre rôles fondamentaux que les administrateurs externes peuvent contribuer à clarifier.
Voici un extrait de la première partie de l’article. Bonne lecture !
Middle-market companies often operate as small fiefdoms under the control of the king, or to use a business term, the CEO. Very few mid-sized companies have a formal board of directors and for those that do have boards, CEOs tend to populate them with family, friends, and internal management. The theory is that board members do not know the business of the company, cost too much, and often do not provide value. In some cases, those conclusions are often true. But in many cases, the establishment of an effective board and the inclusion of outside board members have saved many a company from ruin.
It is estimated that less than 5 percent of middle-market companies have an established board or advisory board, the primary reason for such a low percentage is that small- and middle-market businesses believe they are smart enough not to need a board, think it is too expensive, or believe it would constrain their decision-making abilities.
With the demands on CEOs — including ongoing regulatory changes, pressure from family and other founders, the rise of new competitors and business models, and the need to transform businesses at an ever-quickening pace — it may be time for you to get some help and add an outside director to your board.
Outside directors bring outside experience and perspective to the board. They keep a watchful eye on the inside directors and on the way the organization is run, and provide guidance as to risk management and good corporate governance practices. Outside directors are often useful in handling disputes between inside directors, or between shareholders and the board.
Dans quelles circonstances les administrateurs doivent-ils intervenir directement auprès des actionnaires lorsque vient le temps de discuter des paramètres de la rémunération des hauts dirigeants ?
Quelles modalités doivent encadrer les activités de communication des administrateurs avec les actionnaires et les investisseurs ?
L’article de Jeremy L. Goldstein, paru sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, aborde ces questions en présentant la problématique particulière de l’implication des administrateurs et en proposant des balises à considérer dans le choix des représentants.
Depuis que les entreprises ont l’obligation de consulter les actionnaires sur l’acceptabilité du plan de rémunération globale des hauts dirigeants (Say on Pay), il devient de plus en plus important de bien informer les actionnaires sur ces questions et d’entretenir des liens plus étroits avec ceux-ci. Bonne lecture !
Since the implementation of the mandatory advisory vote on executive compensation, shareholder engagement has become an increasingly important part of the corporate landscape. In light of this development, many companies are struggling to determine whether, when and how corporate directors should engage with shareholders on issues of executive compensation. Set forth below are considerations for companies grappling with these issues.
As a general matter, the chief executive officer of the company should be the corporation’s primary spokesperson. Having the chief executive officer speak with investors and other constituencies helps ensure that the company has a consistent message expressed by its primary architect. However, engaging on executive pay may be different than engaging on other topics for several reasons. Executive pay in general, and CEO pay in particular, is ultimately approved by the board and, accordingly, board members may be best suited to discuss it. In addition, investors sometimes perceive chief executives as being interested in issues of executive compensation. By engaging with shareholders, board members can help add credibility to, and show support for, the company’s programs and can demonstrate to investors that they are exercising their key oversight function. For these reasons, depending on the corporation’s particular facts and circumstances, board members may be best suited to engage with shareholders on issues of executive compensation.
Companies should take into account the following factors in determining whether a board member is the appropriate spokesperson on matters of executive pay:
Knowledge of the Pay Programs: The single most important consideration is whether a director has a strong command of the matters at issue. The purpose of shareholder engagement is to enhance credibility and build trust. These goals are best achieved by the selection of a spokesperson who understands the company’s executive pay program and communicates most effectively the rationale behind it.
Subject Matter to be Addressed: Discussions of CEO pay or similar matters may militate in favor of having a director speak with investors. If, however, the discussions are expected to focus on general compensation policy, other representatives may be better suited to the task.
Preference of the Shareholder: Different shareholders may prefer to speak with different company representatives. Some shareholders may prefer to speak with compensation committee members, while others may not wish to engage with the board at all. Understanding the desires of the investor base and accommodating those desires, where possible, is key to successful shareholder engagement.
Relationship of Individual with Shareholder: It is generally the case that either the lead director/independent chairman or a member of the compensation committee will be the spokesperson for the board on matters of executive pay. While the compensation committee chair might seem like the most logical choice for pay discussions because the compensation committee approves executive pay, selecting a lead director who is engaging with shareholders on other issues may help ensure consistency of message and messenger. A lead director/independent chairman who is also a member of the compensation committee may be an ideal choice.
If a corporation decides to have director engagement on matters of executive pay, such discussions should be integrated into the corporation’s overall communications strategy. Many companies have established a formal protocol for circumstances under which directors receive shareholder inquiries where requests for engagement are routed through the corporate secretary, or if the company has one, the company’s director of corporate governance. In addition, there should be a clear and fully developed understanding between management and the board regarding the nature of the topics to be discussed. Discussions should be limited to agenda items and directors should generally avoid allowing investors to move the conversation into matters of corporate strategy and financial performance unless expressly agreed in advance. Management should ensure that (1) it is fully aware of board engagement activities and (2) directors have appropriate information to respond to investor questions and deliver messages that are consistent with other corporate communications.
Companies should consider whether members of management should be present for the meetings with investors. Under most circumstances this is advisable to ensure that management is informed of the nature of the dialogue. The most likely candidates for attendance at such meetings are the general counsel, director of corporate governance, human resources executives and the head of investor relations. Whether or not these individuals attend, directors engaging with investors should provide the management team with investor feedback received during engagement so that the benefits of engagement may be fully realized. Finally, directors engaging with shareholders should be familiar with Regulation F-D so that information is not revealed to individual investors at a time that it is not disclosed to other market participants in a manner that violates the securities laws.
Shareholder outreach has for many companies become a year-round endeavor. Engaging with investors outside of the regular proxy season enables companies to establish relationships with shareholders before a crisis erupts at a time when investors are not inundated with requests for meetings. Year-round dialogue between directors and shareholders under appropriate circumstances can help a company build credibility, foster investor relations, enhance transparency and avoid surprises during proxy season when it may be too late to change investor sentiment.
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 