Êtes-vous administrateur d’un OSBL? Comprenez-vous bien votre rôle à l’égard de la surveillance de l’organisme sans but lucratif (OSBL) que vous servez? Quelles questions devriez-vous poser pour vous assurer que le cadre de gouvernance et les processus de soutien de votre OSBL sont efficaces et répondent aux besoins particuliers de l’organisme, de sorte que l’OSBL soit productif, respecte ses obligations en matière d’information et réalise sa mission?
Cette activité gratuite d’une durée de 90 minutes aidera les administrateurs d’OSBL à comprendre comment ils peuvent s’assurer qu’un bon cadre de gouvernance est en place au sein de l’organisme qu’ils servent.
VOUS EN SAUREZ PLUS SUR :
les obligations fiduciaires liées à la surveillance pour les conseils et les administrateurs pris individuellement
les exigences et le contexte législatifs
la conception et la mise en place d’un cadre de gouvernance
l’établissement d’une saine dynamique au sein du conseil
les ressources pour l’établissement d’une saine dynamique au sein du conseil
le suivi, l’apprentissage et l’amélioration sur une base continue
les modèles de gouvernance dans le secteur des OSBL
Aujourd’hui, je vous réfère à un formidable compte rendu de l’évolution de la gouvernance aux États-Unis en 2015.
C’est certainement le document le plus exhaustif que je connaisse eu égard au futur de la gouvernance corporative. Cet article rédigé par Holly J. Gregory* associée et responsable de la gouvernance corporative et de la rémunération des dirigeants de la firme Sidley Austin LLP, a été publié sur le forum de la Harvard Law School (HLS).
L’article est assez long mais les spécialistes de toutes les questions de gouvernance y trouveront leur compte car c’est un document phare. On y traite des sujets suivants:
1. L’impact des règlementations sur le rôle de la gouvernance;
2. Les tensions entre l’atteinte de résultats à court terme et les investissements à long terme;
3. L’impact de l’activisme sur le comportement des CA et sur la création de valeur;
4. Les réactions de protection et de défense des CA, notamment en modifiant les règlements de l’entreprise;
5. L’influence et le pouvoir des firmes spécialisées en votation;
6. La démarcation entre la supervision (oversight) de la direction et le management;
7. Les activités de règlementation, d’implantation et de suivi;
8. Le rétablissement de la confiance du public envers les entreprises.
Je vous invite donc à lire cet article dont voici un extrait de la première partie.
Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
The balance of power between shareholders and boards of directors is central to the U.S. public corporation’s success as an engine of economic growth, job creation and innovation. Yet that balance is under significant and increasing strain. In 2015, we expect to see continued growth in shareholder activism and engagement, as well as in the influence of shareholder initiatives, including advisory proposals and votes. Time will tell whether, over the long term, tipping the balance to greater shareholder influence will prove beneficial for corporations, their shareholders and our economy at large. In the near term, there is reason to question whether increased shareholder influence on matters that the law has traditionally apportioned to the board is at the expense of other values that are key to the sustainability of healthy corporations.
…..
Governance Roles and Responsibilities
Over the past 15 years, two distinct theories have been advanced to explain corporate governance failures: too little active and objective board involvement and too little accountability to shareholders. The former finds expression in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s emphasis on improving board attention to financial reporting and compliance, and related Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and listing rules on independent audit committees and director and committee independence and function generally. The latter is expressed by the Dodd-Frank Act’s focus on providing greater influence to shareholders through advisory say on pay votes and access to the company’s proxy machinery for nomination by shareholders of director candidates.
The emerging question is whether federal law and regulation (and related influences) are altering the balance that state law provides between the role of shareholders and the role of the board, and if so, whether that alteration is beneficial or harmful. State law places the management and direction of the corporation firmly in the hands of the board of directors. This legal empowerment of the board—and implicit rejection of governance by shareholder referendum—goes hand in hand with the limited liability that shareholders enjoy. Under state law, directors may not delegate or defer to shareholders as to matters reserved by law for the board, even where a majority of shareholders express a clear preference for a specific outcome. Concern about appropriate balance in shareholder and board roles is implicated by the increasingly coercive nature—given the influence and policies of proxy advisory firms—of federally-mandated advisory say on pay proposals and advisory shareholder proposals submitted under Securities Exchange Act Rule 14a-8 on other matters that do not fall within shareholder decision rights. The extent of proxy advisory firm influence is linked, at least in part, to the manner in which the SEC regulates registered investment advisors.
Short-Term Returns vs. Long-Term Investment
Management has long reported significant pressures to focus on short-term results at the expense of the long-term investment needed to position the corporation for the long term. Observers point to short-term financial market pressures which have increased with the rise of institutional investors whose investment managers have incentives to focus on quarterly performance in relation to benchmark and competing funds.
Short-term pressures may also be accentuated by the increasing reliance on stock-based executive compensation. It is estimated that the percentage of stock-based compensation has tripled since the early nineties: in 1993, approximately 20 percent of executive compensation was stock-based. Today, it is about 60 percent.
Boards that should be positioned to help management take the long-term view and balance competing interests are also under pressure from financial and governance focused shareholder activism. Both forms of activism are supported by proxy advisors that favor some degree of change in board composition and tend to have fairly defined—some would say rigid—views of governance practices.
Shareholder Activism and Its Value
As fiduciaries acting in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, directors must make independent and objective judgments. While it is prudent for boards to understand and consider the range of shareholder concerns and views represented in the shareholder constituency, shareholder engagement has its limits: The board must make its own independent judgment and may not simply defer to the wishes of shareholders. While activist shareholders often bring a valuable perspective, they may press for changes to suit particular special interests or short-term goals that may not be in the company’s long-term interests.
Governance Activism
Shareholder pressure for greater rights and influence through advisory shareholder proposals are expected to continue in the 2015 proxy season. A study of trends from the 2014 proxy season in Fortune 250 companies by James R. Copland and Margaret M. O’Keefe, Proxy Monitor 2014: A Report on Corporate Governance and Shareholder Activism (available at www.proxymonitor.org), suggests that the focus of most shareholder proposal activity does not relate to concerns that are broadly held by the majority of shareholders:
Shareholder support for shareholder proposals is down, with only four percent garnering majority support, down from seven percent in 2013.
A small group of shareholders dominates the shareholder-proposal process. One-third of all shareholder proposals are sponsored by three persons and members of their families and another 28 percent of proposals are sponsored by investors with an avowed social, religious or public-policy focus.
Forty-eight percent of 2014 proposals at Fortune 250 companies related to social or political concerns. However, only one out of these 136 proposals received majority support, and that solitary passing proposal was one that the board had supported.
Institutional Shareholders Services Inc. (“ISS”) is far more likely to recommend in favor of shareholder proposals than the average investor is to support them.
Nonetheless, the universe of shareholder proposals included in corporate proxy statements pursuant to Rule 14a-8 has grown significantly over the years. In addition, the coercive power of advisory shareholder proposals has expanded as a result of the policy of proxy advisors to recommend that their clients vote against the re-election of directors who fail to implement advisory shareholder proposals that receive a majority of votes cast. Directors should carefully assess the reasons underlying shareholder efforts to use advisory proposals to influence the company’s strategic direction or otherwise change the board’s approach to matters such as CEO compensation and succession, risk management, governance structures and environmental and social issues. Shareholder viewpoints provide an important data set, but must be understood in the context of the corporation’s best interest rather than the single lens of one particular constituency.
….
__________________________________
*Holly J. Gregory is a partner and co-global coordinator of the Corporate Governance and Executive Compensation group at Sidley Austin LLP.
Dans ce document de Deloitte, intitulé « un état de changement », j’attire votre attention sur deux sections qui sont importantes pour les gestionnaires d’OBNL :
(1) La communication de l’information sur les avantages sociaux futurs par les organismes sans but lucratif;
(2) L’améliorations des normes pour les organismes sans but lucratif – un rapport présentant les commentaires sur les 15 principes clés relatifs à la comptabilité des OBNL privées et publiques.
Le Conseil des normes comptables du Canada (CNC) et le Conseil sur la comptabilité dans le secteur public (CCSP) sont responsables des suite à donner à la consultation menée depuis plus d’un an.
Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
Pour l’instant, l’orientation qui sera adoptée par les organismes de normalisation est incertaine compte tenu des commentaires reçus et des principes proposés à l’origine dans l’énoncé de principes. Restez à l’affût des renseignements qui suivront, car les Conseils collaborent en vue d’améliorer l’orientation future des normes comptables pour les organismes sans but lucratif! Si vous souhaitez prendre connaissance de certains ou de tous les commentaires reçus à l’égard de l’énoncé de principes, visitez le site Web des Normes d’information financière et de certification (www.nifccanada.ca).
Voici une mise à jour importante de la firme ISS concernant les recommandations liées aux propositions des actionnaires susceptibles d’être incluses dans les circulaires de procuration des entreprises.
Carol Bowieresponsable de la recherche à Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) présente les arguments qui sous-tendent ce changement de politique. Ainsi, ISS se prononcera en faveur de l’inclusion des propositions des actionnaires dans les circulaires de procuration en autant qu’un certain nombre de limites soient respectées :
1. Exigences en ce qui a trait à la limite de propriété – maximum de 3 % du pouvoir de votation;
2. Exigences en ce qui a trait à la durée continue de la propriété – pas plus de 3 ans;
3. Exigences relatives au nombre d’actionnaires requis pour former un groupe éligible à la proposition de recommandations – pas de limite au nombre d’actionnaires requis;
4. Exigences relatives au nombre de nominations – maximum de 25 % des membres du CA.
Je vous invite à lire le texte ci-dessous pour avoir plus de détails sur l’ensemble des recommandation de ISS paru sur le Harvard Law Scool Forum on Corporate Governance.
1. How will ISS recommend on proxy access proposals?
Drawing on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) decades-long effort to draft a market-wide rule allowing investors to place director nominees on corporate ballots, and reflecting feedback from a broad range of institutional investors and their portfolio companies, ISS is updating its policy on proxy access to generally align with the SEC’s formulation.
Old Recommendation: ISS supports proxy access as an important shareholder right, one that is complementary to other best-practice corporate governance features. However, in the absence of a uniform standard, proposals to enact proxy access may vary widely; as such, ISS is not setting forth specific parameters at this time and will take a case-by-case approach when evaluating these proposals.
Vote case-by-case on proposals to enact proxy access, taking into account, among other factors:
Company-specific factors; and
Proposal-specific factors, including:
The ownership thresholds proposed in the resolution (i.e., percentage and duration);
The maximum proportion of directors that shareholders may nominate each year; and
The method of determining which nominations should appear on the ballot if multiple shareholders submit nominations.
New Recommendation: ISS will generally recommend in favor of management and shareholder proposals for proxy access with the following provisions:
Ownership threshold: maximum requirement not more than three percent (3%) of the voting power;
Ownership duration: maximum requirement not longer than three (3) years of continuous ownership for each member of the nominating group;
Aggregation: minimal or no limits on the number of shareholders permitted to form a nominating group;
Cap: cap on nominees of generally twenty-five percent (25%) of the board.
Review for reasonableness any other restrictions on the right of proxy access.
Generally recommend a vote against proposals that are more restrictive than these guidelines.
Rationale for update:
Vested with clear legal authority by the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC adopted a proxy access rule (Rule 14a-11) in August 2010 that provided a thoughtful balance of a number of factors including the ownership threshold and the holding period duration. The DC Circuit Court vacated the rule in July 2011 based on its findings of procedural deficiencies in the SEC’s rulemaking process. ISS’ earlier policy, updated for the 2012 proxy season, largely focused on attempts by shareholder proposal proponents to lower the safeguards against abuse (for example, an extremely low ownership threshold) of the access right that the SEC’s formulation addressed. As such, the policy sought to maintain the balance that the SEC struck between protecting shareholders’ rights and the potential abuse of the access process. Three years of voting results on both management- and shareholder-sponsored proxy access proposals drawing on the Commission’s model appear to validate the SEC’s formulation. Moreover, a 2014 CFA Institute study provides a cost-benefit analysis, which the court said was lacking in the SEC’s rulemaking process, and concludes that “proxy access would serve as a useful tool for shareowners in the United States and would ultimately benefit both the markets and corporate boardrooms, with little cost or disruption to companies and the markets as a whole.”
For companies that present both a board and shareholder proxy access proposals on the ballot, ISS will review each of them under the policy.
Exclusion of Shareholder Proposals
2. What are ISS’ expectations regarding whether a company includes a shareholder proposal on its ballot?
The ability of qualifying shareholders to include their properly presented proposals in a company’s proxy materials is a fundamental right of share ownership, which is deeply rooted in state law and the federal securities statutes. Shareholder proposals promote engagement and debate in an efficient and cost-effective fashion.
Over the course of the past several decades, the SEC has played the role of referee in resolving disputes raised by corporate challenges to the inclusion of shareholder proposals in company proxy materials. While federal courts provide an additional level of review, the vast majority of shareholder proposal challenges have been resolved without the need to resort to costly and cumbersome litigation. While individual proponents and issuers often disagree with the SEC’s determinations in these adversarial proceedings, the governance community recognizes the Commission’s important role as an impartial arbiter of these disputes.
On Jan 16, 2015, the SEC announced that it was reviewing Rule 14a-8(i)(9), which allows companies to exclude a shareholder proposal that “directly conflicts” with a board-sponsored proposal. Additionally, SEC Chair Mary Jo White indicated that for proxy season 2015, the Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance will express no view on the application of Rule 14a-8(i)(9). As a result, companies that intended to seek no-action relief on that basis are now deciding their courses of action.
For companies that present both a board and shareholder proposal on the ballot on a similar topic, ISS will review each of them under the applicable policy.
ISS will view attempts to circumvent the normal avenues of dispute resolution and appeal with a high degree of skepticism. Omitting shareholder proposals without obtaining regulatory or judicial relief risks litigation against the company. Presenting only a management proposal on the ballot also limits governance discourse by preventing shareholders from considering an opposing viewpoint, and only allowing them to consider and opine on the view of management.
Thus, under our governance failures policy, ISS will generally recommend a vote against one or more directors (individual directors, certain committee members, or the entire board based on case-specific facts and circumstances), if a company omits from its ballot a properly submitted shareholder proposal when it has not obtained:
1) voluntary withdrawal of the proposal by the proponent;
2) no-action relief from the SEC; or
3) a U.S. District Court ruling that it can exclude the proposal from its ballot.
The recommendation against directors in this circumstance is regardless of whether there is a board-sponsored proposal on the same topic on the ballot. If the company has taken unilateral steps to implement the proposal, however, the degree to which the proposal is implemented, and any material restrictions added to it, will factor into the assessment.
3. Does the Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments policy create a new approach for ISS?
No. ISS has a long history of recommending its clients oppose directors who adopt, without obtaining shareholder approval, bylaw or charter amendments that materially diminish shareholder rights. Such unilateral board actions were covered under ISS’ Governance Failures policy, but due to a recent increase in their occurrence, as of 2015 ISS separated these actions into a standalone policy to increase transparency to clients and issuers, and to facilitate the application of custom clients’ policies.
The Governance Failures policy is designed to recognize one-off egregious actions that are not covered under other policies. If a type of corporate action that disadvantages shareholders becomes commonplace, ISS will often address such problematic practice via a standalone policy. In 2014, the three most common categories of conduct addressed under this policy were:
…
4. Which types of unilateral bylaw/charter amendments are likely to be considered by ISS to materially diminish shareholders’ rights?
If a unilaterally adopted amendment is deemed materially adverse to shareholder rights, ISS will recommend a vote against the board.
Unilaterally adopted bylaw amendments that are considered on a case-by-case basis, but generally are not considered materially adverse:
….
In assessing bylaw and charter changes at pre-IPO companies, ISS will consider the timing of the adoption of the provisions that diminish post-IPO shareholders rights, the clarity of disclosures of such changes (including in the company’s prospectus or other documents connected to the public offering) and the continuity of board membership.
5. How likely is ISS to support management proposals for fee-shifting bylaws?
As of early February 2015, approximately 50 bylaws allowing fee shifting have been adopted unilaterally, with none put to a shareholder vote. Our Litigation Rights policy states:
Generally vote against bylaws that mandate fee-shifting whenever plaintiffs are not completely successful on the merits (i.e., in cases where the plaintiffs are partially successful).
Voici une étude empirique qui cherche à mieux comprendre comment le choix des mesures de performance influence la rémunération de la direction.
Globalement, les résultats montrent une corrélation positive entre la rémunération du CEO et plusieurs autres mesures de création de valeur. L’étude indique qu’il y a d’autres facteurs qui viennent nuancer cette conclusion.
Je vous invite à lire cet article pour mieux saisir les relations entre les mesures de performance et la structure de rémunération de la direction. Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un court extrait de cette étude.
Debate surrounding executive compensation is an enduring feature of the UK corporate landscape. While concern over compensation levels continue to exercise politicians, regulators, investors and the media, there is growing concern over the degree to which performance metrics commonly used in executive compensation contracts represent appropriate measures of long-term value creation. This debate partly reflects fears that UK executives face excessive pressure to deliver short-term results at the expense of long-term improvements in value (e.g., Kay Review 2012).
This report contributes to the debate over executive compensation generally and in particular to the question of performance measure choice in executive compensation contracts. The first part of the report summarises key insights from the academic and professional literatures regarding the structure of executive compensation arrangements and the metrics used to link pay with corporate performance.
The second part of the report presents findings from a pilot study of executive compensation arrangements and their association with corporate value creation using a subsample of FTSE-100 companies.
…
Our results provide some comfort but also create cause for concern. On the positive side, results demonstrate a material positive association between CEO pay and several measures of value creation for all capital providers. The evidence suggests that prevailing executive pay structures incentivise and reward important aspects of value creation even though contractual performance metrics are not directly linked with value creation in many cases. More troubling, however, is our evidence that (i) a large fraction of CEO pay appears unrelated to periodic value creation and (ii) key aspects of compensation consistently correlate with performance metrics such as TSR and EPS growth where the direct link with value creation is more fragile.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, les commentaires de Luis A. Aguilar, commissaire à la U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, sur les moyens à prendre pour inciter les actionnaires des sociétés cotées à se prévaloir de leurs droits de vote par procuration.
Le commissaire présente clairement les difficultés liées au processus de votation existant, en adoptant le point de vue de l’actionnariat individuel (retail) et en mettant en exergue les incongruités de la règlementation.
Les panels constitués pour discuter de ces questions ont essentiellement deux sujets à explorer :
L’importance d’adopter un bulletin de vote « universel » qui permettrait aux actionnaires de voter séparément dans les cas d’administrateurs contestés
L’importance d’améliorer la participation de l’actionnariat au processus de votation par procuration. Aux États-Unis, les « petits actionnaires » possèdent 30 % des actions des 1 000 plus grandes entreprises mais leur taux de participation au processus de votation n’est que de 13 %. Les investisseurs institutionnels, en comparaison, utilisent leurs droits de vote dans 90 % des cas.
Je vous invite donc à lire les arguments exposés par le commissaire et à livrer votre point de vue sur ces deux questions. Cette problématique s’adresse tout autant à la situation canadienne.
Que faire pour assurer une meilleure participation de l’actionnariat diffus au processus de votation, surtout en cas d’élection contestée ?
Today’s [February 19, 2015] Roundtable on Proxy Voting is certainly timely since over the course of the next several months, thousands of America’s public companies will hold annual shareholders meetings to elect directors and to vote on many important corporate governance issues. The start of the annual “proxy season” is an appropriate time to consider the annual process by which companies communicate with their shareholders and get their input on a variety of issues. Whether it’s voting on directors, executive compensation matters, or other significant matters, the annual meeting is the principal opportunity for shareholders—the true owners of public companies—to have their voices heard by the corporate managers of their investments. At these annual meetings, shareholders can express their support, or disappointment, with the direction of their companies through the exercise of their right to vote.
As today’s panelists know well, the days of shareholders coming together, sitting in a room and talking one-on-one with the directors and officers running their companies are long gone. The ownership of today’s public companies is both too widely dispersed geographically and would involve too many shareholders to reasonably attend shareholders meetings (such meetings would require football stadiums rather than typical conference rooms). Accordingly, rather than attending the annual shareholders meetings in person to cast their votes, shareholders of public companies typically submit their votes by proxy. To that end, the Commission recognizes that the proxy statement process is a vital means by which shareholders and companies’ leadership communicate with one another. Consistent with this reality, the Commission’s proxy rules operate on the principle that the proxy process should function, as close as possible, to replicate the rights of a shareholder who attends the annual meeting in person.
These rules are not static, however. The advent of the internet and other recent technological advances that have resulted in the rapid evolution in communications have raised tremendous possibilities, and a host of issues, related to how shareholders can engage in the proxy process. This is why it is so important for the Commission, the investor’s advocate, to continue to actively monitor and improve the proxy process so that it best protects the interests of shareholders.
To that end, today’s Roundtable will focus on two fundamental issues: first, a discussion of how best to empower shareholders so that they can effectively vote for the director they want; and second, a discussion of whether the existing proxy voting process is fostering or hindering the ability of shareholders to exercise their voting rights.
Importance of the Universal Proxy Ballot
To discuss the issues of empowering shareholders to vote for the directors of their choice, today’s first panel will focus on the state of contested director elections and discuss the use of universal proxy ballots. The fundamental issue to be addressed by this panel is straightforward: shareholders who could attend the annual meetings in person, particularly in contested elections, would have the ability to “split their tickets” and vote among all of the eligible candidates—whether recommended by management or by other shareholders. The same cannot be said for shareholders who participate in contested director elections by proxy. Rather, under today’s proxy regime, shareholders who vote by proxy effectively are unable to pick-and-choose among all eligible director candidates. This is because current proxy rules effectively do not provide shareholders with a single proxy ballot that would allow them to vote on candidates nominated by both shareholder proponents and management. This is one anomaly in the Commission’s proxy process rules that, when taken into account with prevailing state proxy laws, do not replicate an actual in-person meeting of shareholders. As a result, these proxy rules effectively result in diminishing shareholders’ rights by limiting voting choice during contested elections—an unwelcomed result at an important time for shareholders to have their voices heard.
To address these concerns, shareholders, commenters, and others have at various times promoted the idea of a universal proxy ballot—or a proxy card that permits shareholders to choose among all eligible director candidates. More recently, in 2013, the Commission’s Investor Advisory Committee (“IAC”) considered this issue and recommended that the Commission explore amending the proxy rules to provide any person soliciting proxies with the option of distributing a “universal ballot” in a “short slate” direction nomination—or a proxy contest in which the outside candidates would not control the board if elected. Even more recently, other commenters have suggested that the Commission facilitate the use of universal ballot proxy cards for all director elections, regardless of any resulting change in control.
The goal of these recommendations is to remove artificial barriers to shareholder nominations and thereby improve shareholder choice. The expectation is that a universal ballot proxy card would make management and boards of directors more responsive to the interests of shareholders.
I look forward to a robust discussion of the universal proxy ballot concept and a discussion of what can be done to improve the ways that shareholders can elect the directors that they want to run their companies.
Improving Informed Retail Participation in the Proxy Process
Today’s second panel will discuss possible approaches to addressing the drop in retail shareholder participation in the proxy process. This discussion is particularly important, given how Americans are increasingly relying on the capital markets for their savings and retirement. In fact, the data shows that about half of all U.S. households participate, either directly or indirectly, in the stock market.
While retail shareholders are no longer the predominant owners of America’s public companies like they were in the years before 1945, they remain significant direct owners of public companies. For example, one report found that as of the end of 2009, retail shareholders owned nearly 30% of the shares of America’s largest 1,000 public companies. This is a significant percentage of direct ownership interests and makes it clear why the Commission must promote policies that encourage retail investors to protect their interests by exercising their voting rights.
It’s no secret that retail shareholder participation in the proxy process has been falling. In fact, one of the first issues that I raised after becoming a Commissioner concerned the negative impact on retail investor voting following the Commission’s 2005 adoption of an “access equals delivery” rule. I noted in February 2009 that retail investor voting, already at low numbers, had plummeted at those companies using the notice and access model permitted by this rule. Indeed, the reports that compiled statistics on the level of participation by investors before and after the notice and access model was put in place at their companies found decreases of over 30% for large investors, and over 60% for smaller investors. Other reports find that retail response rates have declined each year since the introduction of the notice and access model, falling to less than a 13% response rate for the period from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014.
Although the Commission has not revisited the “access equals delivery” rule to determine its continuing impact, which is something I think should be done, the SEC has taken some steps to create greater interest in the voting process. For example, in 2010, the Commission identified a need for education outreach to better inform retail investors as to the importance of exercising their voting rights—and how to exercise those rights. In connection with that effort, the Commission took a series of steps designed to educate investors—including issuing an “investor alert” on new shareholder rules in advance of the 2010 proxy season, and launching a new “Spotlight on Proxy Matters” Web page at sec.gov that provides investors with information on the mechanics of proxy voting, the e-proxy rules, corporate elections, and proxy matters generally.
Notwithstanding the Commission’s efforts—which admittedly were limited—retail shareholder participation in the proxy process remains disappointingly low. For example, one report looking at a sample of annual meetings in 2013 found that 70% of shares held by retail shareholders were not voted. Another more recent report found that by July 2014, institutional shareholders had voted 90% of their shares, but retail shareholders had voted just 29% of their shares.
These dismal retail investor participation numbers have continued, despite technological advances that should have made it easier and more efficient for widely dispersed groups of shareholders to engage with other investors and their companies. For example, so-called “virtual shareholder meetings,” which allow shareholders to use the internet—not just to listen and watch, but also to vote their shares—have grown in prevalence over the past five years. Yet, retail shareholder participation remains low.
Perhaps it’s not just the use of new technology but, rather, how that technology is used that will result in greater shareholder participation.
For instance, it has been suggested that the better use of 21st century technology in the proxy process may facilitate how shareholders can more effectively receive and understand how their companies are performing, and to better put that performance into perspective. Indeed, it’s only logical to expect that better informed investors would likely participate in greater numbers.
In its 2010 Concept Release on the U.S. Proxy System, the Commission stated that if issuers provided reportable items in interactive data format, “shareholders may be able to more easily obtain specific information about issuers, compare information across different issuers, and observe how issuer-specific information changes over time as the same issuer continues to file in an interactive data format.” In addition, in 2013, the IAC recommended that the Commission immediately prioritize tagging important information with respect to various corporate governance issues, including portions of the proxy statement that relate to executive compensation and matters voted upon by shareholders. The IAC added that tagging the voting data and results contained in certain forms could result in more informed voting and investment decisions, and would facilitate comparisons among public companies. For these reasons, the IAC suggested that data tagging could “facilitate participation in the governance process.”
The end goal, of course, is not simply to increase retail shareholder participation in the proxy process, but rather to increase informed participation in this process. This is one of the fundamental concerns that have been previously raised about so-called “advance voting instructions” (sometimes referred to as “client-directed voting”). In particular, most iterations of advance voting instructions inevitably would set voting instructions for shareholders before any disclosures about the matters in question are known or even available. Any serious discussion of the merits of advanced voting instructions needs to consider how these processes will comport with the basic disclosure principles of investor protection and shareholder rights that underpin the current proxy rules.
As today’s panelists discuss various ways to promote retail shareholder participation in the proxy process, the discussion should focus, not only on how to get a shareholder to technically cast their vote, but also on how best to protect the fundamental interests of shareholders in making informed voting decisions.
Conclusion
I expect that today’s Roundtable will go a long way in assisting the Commission in exploring how best to get shareholders to participate in shareholders meetings and, in particular, how best to give them a more effective way to vote for the directors of their choice.
I would like to thank all of our panelists for taking the time to be here today, and I want to thank the staff for organizing this Roundtable. I look forward to an active discussion about the universal proxy ballots and the ways to increase the participation of informed shareholders in the proxy process.
In conclusion, I want to remind everyone that there will be a public comment file associated with today’s Roundtable. I look forward to receiving additional comments and input on these issues.
L’expérience de la gestion des OBNL nous apprend que les entrepreneurs-propriétaires-fondateurs de ces organisations vivent souvent des aventures d’affaires formidables parce qu’ils sont animés par un feu sacré et une passion hors du commun. C’est souvent ce qui fait que certaines entreprises de l’économie sociale sortent de l’ombre !
Ainsi, suite à la mise sur pied de l’organisme à but non lucratif, les premiers dirigeants doivent s’impliquer activement dans la gestion quotidienne de l’entreprise; ils investissent beaucoup de temps – bénévolement – tout en occupant aussi un autre emploi.
Après plusieurs années de dévouement, de développement d’affaires tangible, de notoriété accrue et de succès répétés, souvent après des décennies d’efforts…, les gestionnaires bénévoles deviennent surchargés. L’entreprise doit se professionnaliser…
Toutes les organisations vivent ces grandes mutations, souvent déchirantes mais indispensables pour assurer la pérennité de l’entreprise.
Les leaders bénévoles doivent alors s’entourer de ressources additionnelles : administration générale, opérations, ventes, finances et comptabilité, recherche de commandites et de subventions, communications publiques, etc.
Ces nouvelles ressources, bien qu’ayant l’entreprise à cœur, ne sont pas animés de la même passion; en conséquence, l’organisation doit les rémunérer. Cela crée souvent deux classes : les responsables bénévoles (lesquels se retrouvent généralement au CA) et le personnel rémunéré.
Selon moi, le CA doit prévoir des mécanismes de transition clairs afin que les fondateurs-gestionnaires soient traités avec équité et reconnaissance.
When it comes to attracting and retaining talented leaders, the setting of executive compensation packages has posed continuing challenges to nonprofits since the 1980s. These challenges relate to the professionalization of the sector, the increasing desire to measure and reward success, and the need to retain and promote the most talented managers.
Voici un cas qui illustre pourquoi un CA doit se montrer très clairvoyant dans l’expression de sa gratitude envers les fondateurs bénévoles. Il ne doit pas attendre que les premiers dirigeants s’essoufflent, puis se retirent, pour leur exprimer sa satisfaction sous la forme d’une rétribution financière. On notera qu’il s’agit ici d’une OBNL d’envergure et que le PDG recevait déjà une rémunération significative.
Ce cas, rédigé par Ruth McCambridge et publié dans Nonprofit Quaterly, montre que le conseil d’administration d’une l’OBNL doit éviter de s’embourber dans des questions de rémunération du PDG, surtout lorsque l’organisme est tributaire de fonds publics pour son financement.
This story is not new. A CEO spends decades providing measurably great leadership for a nonprofit, but no one ever considers ensuring that she is able to retire at the end of all that. So the board plays a little catch-up and makes a lump sum payment, causing a media storm in which scrutiny is focused unkindly on the organization.
So it was with the now-retired CEO of Health Care and Rehabilitation Services. Judith Hayward had been at the organization for 19 years and had built its budget from $8 million to $50 million annually. She was given a $650,000 compensation package when she retired around a year ago. Approximately 85 percent of the organization’s budget comes from taxpayer money.
Even though these kinds of payments may not be illegal and may even be ethical, when they come to light, they almost invariably cause problems for nonprofits—especially those that receive public contracts.
In this case, the board crossed its t’s and dotted its i’s. The executive and finance committees made recommendations and the board approved the payment in 2010. But when the payment was highlighted during a recent audit, the current CEO, George Karabakakis, felt compelled to travel to Montpelier to meet with local legislators to explain.
“It felt to myself, to the board, and to the senior leadership team that it was really important to come out and share the information,” Karabakakis said. “I don’t want legislators, or our staff, or anyone to get half truths or hear about this through the grapevine or the rumor mill. It’s important to put it out clearly and say ‘This is what happened.’”
Hayward’s annual salary when she retired was about $163,000. “Everyone on the board thought she did a tremendous job,” said J. Allen Dougherty, who served as chair of the HCRS board when the retirement package was approved. “She brought the organization out of bankruptcy, developed new programs and everyone who had contact with her, including people from the state, thought she did a magnificent job. She never had a retirement package and the board thought this was a way we could make it up to her.”
The package was originally approved at $450,000, but that was increased to $650,000 in 2013 when it was discovered that Hayward would be immediately taxed for $200,000 once she started to receive the payments.
Unfortunately, this year, for the first time in at least 10 years, HCRS employees did not get a raise, and Karabakakis said staff have been “disappointed, angry and outraged.”
“Some people may see it as excessive,” he said. “If we’re going to provide a deferred compensation package, it’s important that we look at the industry standard, and make sure that we do have a culture of openness and transparency.”
But the staff were unlikely to have been solely concerned about transparency. The other thing a board needs to ensure is that fair retirement benefits extend to all workers. The notion of caring only about the old age comfort of top employees is, naturally, abhorrent and insulting to many others. It’s no surprise, and in times where income inequality begs for our attention, our organizations should try not to mimic the bad policies of the larger economy.
Karabakakis said the whole incident has caused a review of employment policies, the establishment of a personnel committee, and a “commitment to open and transparent communication with all concerned.”
But all of that after-the-fact work is being done after the horse has left the barn. As reported here, Rep. Michael Mrowicki, who serves on the Human Services Committee, says he will bring up the possible oversight of executive compensation in the legislature. “These payments seem to have been structured in a way that they are legal, but they don’t really pass the smell test,” he said. “We are trying to figure out our next step.”
“Mainly we want to make sure this doesn’t happen again,” he said. “We wouldn’t want to set a precedent for other people to think they deserve more than they have been paid. The staff at these agencies work incredibly hard, and you don’t have to go very far to find people who are being denied services because they are told there is not enough money. These state agencies are entrusted with public money and the taxpayers deserve to be protected. It is frustrating and disappointing on a very basic level.”
The fact is that many nonprofits do not attend to retirement packages adequately until doing what feels fair on one level may look unreasonable to others. With as many baby boomers as there are in leadership at nonprofits, it is well past time to consider these issues.
Voici une vidéo de la Banque de Développement du Canada (BDC) vantant les mérites d’un comité consultatif dans le cas d’une petite entreprise. Les propriétaires affirment que la mise en place d’un comité consultatif est « l’un des secrets les mieux gardés pour améliorer une entreprise ».
Il ne fait aucun doute que les petites entreprises privées ou les OBNL ont de multiples avantages à former un conseil consultatif, avant de se lancer dans la mise en place d’un conseil d’administration. Le cas de l’entreprise Steelworks Design illustre bien les bénéfices à retirer d’un tel arrangement de gouvernance.
Cependant, il faut se concentrer sur une solide composition de ce conseil, et c’est là que réside tout le défi !
Découvrez pourquoi former un comité consultatif est l’un des secrets les mieux gardés pour améliorer une entreprise. Rhonda Barnet, vice-présidente de Steelworks Design, explique ici comment les conseils externes ainsi que les encouragements de son comité consultatif ont permis à l’entreprise de surmonter les difficultés et de connaître de nouveaux succès.
Si vous voulez consulter un autre article qui résume parfaitement les principaux avantages reliés à l’utilisation d’un comité consultatif (aviseur), je vous invite à lire ce court article d’Olivier Dellacherie paru dans Talent4Boards Inc.
Êtes-vous administrateur d’un OSBL? Comprenez-vous bien votre rôle à l’égard de la surveillance de l’organisme sans but lucratif (OSBL) que vous servez? Quelles questions devriez-vous poser pour vous assurer que le cadre de gouvernance et les processus de soutien de votre OSBL sont efficaces et répondent aux besoins particuliers de l’organisme, de sorte que l’OSBL soit productif, respecte ses obligations en matière d’information et réalise sa mission?
Cette activité gratuite d’une durée de 90 minutes aidera les administrateurs d’OSBL à comprendre comment ils peuvent s’assurer qu’un bon cadre de gouvernance est en place au sein de l’organisme qu’ils servent.
VOUS EN SAUREZ PLUS SUR :
les obligations fiduciaires liées à la surveillance pour les conseils et les administrateurs pris individuellement
les exigences et le contexte législatifs
la conception et la mise en place d’un cadre de gouvernance
l’établissement d’une saine dynamique au sein du conseil
les ressources pour l’établissement d’une saine dynamique au sein du conseil
le suivi, l’apprentissage et l’amélioration sur une base continue
les modèles de gouvernance dans le secteur des OSBL
Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) offre un cours haut de gamme en gouvernance des PME destiné aux chefs d’entreprise, hauts dirigeants, investisseurs et administrateurs appelés à siéger sur les conseils d’administration ou sur les comités consultatifs de PME. Cette formation, offerte les 24 et 25 février prochains à Montréal, a pour objectifs de :
Réfléchir et échanger entre chefs d’entreprise, haut-dirigeants, investisseurs et administrateurs de PME sur les pratiques de gouvernance les mieux adaptées et les plus efficaces pour ce type d’entreprise.
Poser un regard réaliste sur la gouvernance actuelle et future des PME.
Outiller les participants afin de faciliter les transformations nécessaires à la pérennité et/ou la croissance des PME les concernant.
Ivan Tchotourian*, professeur en droit des affaires à l’Université Laval, vient de publier un ouvrage dans la collection du Centre d’Études en Droit Économique (CÉDÉ). Cet ouvrage aborde la gouvernance d’entreprise et les devoirs des administrateurs.
Intitulé « Devoir de prudence et de diligence des administrateurs et RSE : Approche comparative et prospective », ce livre analyse les liens entre les devoirs des administrateurs et la responsabilité sociale des entreprises (RSE).
L’interrogation centrale qu’aborde cette publication est de savoir ce qu’on attend aujourd’hui d’un administrateur de société prudent et diligent. De nos jours, une réflexion s’impose sur la prudence et la diligence dont doit faire preuve chaque administrateur. Après avoir exposé le devoir de prudence et de diligence des administrateurs dans ce qui fait son histoire et son actualité, les auteurs offrent une vision prospective sur le devenir de cette norme de conduite au tournant du XXe siècle faisant place à une responsabilisation croissante des sociétés par actions.
Dans cet ouvrage, les auteurs s’interrogent de manière innovante sur le contenu du devoir de prudence et de diligence au regard de l’émergence des préoccupations liées à la RSE. Sous l’influence de facteurs macro juridiques et micro juridiques, la norme de conduite prudente et diligente des administrateurs évolue. La norme d’aujourd’hui ne sera sans doute plus celle de demain, encore faut-il pleinement en saisir les implications juridiques.
A priori, cet ouvrage devrait intéresser un certain nombre de lecteurs en gouvernance. En voici un bref aperçu :
La responsabilité sociale des entreprises et le développement durable sont devenus des objectifs tant politiques qu’économiques conférant de nouvelles attentes vis-à-vis du comportement des entreprises. Ces dernières détenant un pouvoir considérable, chacune de leurs décisions a des implications sur l’économie, l’emploi, l’environnement et la communauté locale. Au vu de ces observations, la norme de prudence et de diligence doit faire l’objet d’une attention renouvelée par les juristes non seulement dans ce qu’elle est aujourd’hui au Québec, au Canada et ailleurs, mais encore dans ce qu’elle se prépare à être dans un proche avenir.
Cet ouvrage s’intéresse à cette question en deux temps. La première partie de l’ouvrage détaille le devoir de gestion intelligente des administrateurs de sociétés dans une approche de droit comparé. La deuxième partie de l’ouvrage trace les grandes lignes de la norme de prudence et de diligence du XXI e siècle. En conclusion, l’auteur présente quelques réflexions prospectives.
Aperçu de la table des matières
Chapitre 1 – Introduction
Chapitre 2 – La norme de prudence et de diligence d’aujourd’hui
Prolégomènes sur le statut juridique des administrateurs
La norme de prudence et de diligence : des premières esquisses à l’ère des codifications
Contenu et régime du devoir de prudence et de diligence
Discussion autour de l’existence d’un recours judiciaire au profit du tiers
Chapitre 3 – La norme de prudence et de diligence de demain
*Ivan Tchotourian, professeur en droit des affaires, codirecteur du Centre d’Études en Droit Économique (CÉDÉ), membre du Groupe de recherche en droit des services financiers (www.grdsf.ulaval.ca), Faculté de droit, Université Laval.
Aujourd’hui, je vous réfère à un formidable compte rendu de l’évolution de la gouvernance aux États-Unis en 2015.
C’est certainement le document le plus exhaustif que je connaisse eu égard au futur de la gouvernance corporative. Cet article rédigé par Holly J. Gregory* associée et responsable de la gouvernance corporative et de la rémunération des dirigeants de la firme Sidley Austin LLP, a été publié sur le forum de la Harvard Law School (HLS).
L’article est assez long mais les spécialistes de toutes les questions de gouvernance y trouveront leur compte car c’est un document phare. On y traite des sujets suivants:
1. L’impact des règlementations sur le rôle de la gouvernance;
2. Les tensions entre l’atteinte de résultats à court terme et les investissements à long terme;
3. L’impact de l’activisme sur le comportement des CA et sur la création de valeur;
4. Les réactions de protection et de défense des CA, notamment en modifiant les règlements de l’entreprise;
5. L’influence et le pouvoir des firmes spécialisées en votation;
6. La démarcation entre la supervision (oversight) de la direction et le management;
7. Les activités de règlementation, d’implantation et de suivi;
8. Le rétablissement de la confiance du public envers les entreprises.
Je vous invite donc à lire cet article dont voici un extrait de la première partie.
Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
The balance of power between shareholders and boards of directors is central to the U.S. public corporation’s success as an engine of economic growth, job creation and innovation. Yet that balance is under significant and increasing strain. In 2015, we expect to see continued growth in shareholder activism and engagement, as well as in the influence of shareholder initiatives, including advisory proposals and votes. Time will tell whether, over the long term, tipping the balance to greater shareholder influence will prove beneficial for corporations, their shareholders and our economy at large. In the near term, there is reason to question whether increased shareholder influence on matters that the law has traditionally apportioned to the board is at the expense of other values that are key to the sustainability of healthy corporations.
…..
Governance Roles and Responsibilities
Over the past 15 years, two distinct theories have been advanced to explain corporate governance failures: too little active and objective board involvement and too little accountability to shareholders. The former finds expression in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s emphasis on improving board attention to financial reporting and compliance, and related Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and listing rules on independent audit committees and director and committee independence and function generally. The latter is expressed by the Dodd-Frank Act’s focus on providing greater influence to shareholders through advisory say on pay votes and access to the company’s proxy machinery for nomination by shareholders of director candidates.
The emerging question is whether federal law and regulation (and related influences) are altering the balance that state law provides between the role of shareholders and the role of the board, and if so, whether that alteration is beneficial or harmful. State law places the management and direction of the corporation firmly in the hands of the board of directors. This legal empowerment of the board—and implicit rejection of governance by shareholder referendum—goes hand in hand with the limited liability that shareholders enjoy. Under state law, directors may not delegate or defer to shareholders as to matters reserved by law for the board, even where a majority of shareholders express a clear preference for a specific outcome. Concern about appropriate balance in shareholder and board roles is implicated by the increasingly coercive nature—given the influence and policies of proxy advisory firms—of federally-mandated advisory say on pay proposals and advisory shareholder proposals submitted under Securities Exchange Act Rule 14a-8 on other matters that do not fall within shareholder decision rights. The extent of proxy advisory firm influence is linked, at least in part, to the manner in which the SEC regulates registered investment advisors.
Short-Term Returns vs. Long-Term Investment
Management has long reported significant pressures to focus on short-term results at the expense of the long-term investment needed to position the corporation for the long term. Observers point to short-term financial market pressures which have increased with the rise of institutional investors whose investment managers have incentives to focus on quarterly performance in relation to benchmark and competing funds.
Short-term pressures may also be accentuated by the increasing reliance on stock-based executive compensation. It is estimated that the percentage of stock-based compensation has tripled since the early nineties: in 1993, approximately 20 percent of executive compensation was stock-based. Today, it is about 60 percent.
Boards that should be positioned to help management take the long-term view and balance competing interests are also under pressure from financial and governance focused shareholder activism. Both forms of activism are supported by proxy advisors that favor some degree of change in board composition and tend to have fairly defined—some would say rigid—views of governance practices.
Shareholder Activism and Its Value
As fiduciaries acting in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, directors must make independent and objective judgments. While it is prudent for boards to understand and consider the range of shareholder concerns and views represented in the shareholder constituency, shareholder engagement has its limits: The board must make its own independent judgment and may not simply defer to the wishes of shareholders. While activist shareholders often bring a valuable perspective, they may press for changes to suit particular special interests or short-term goals that may not be in the company’s long-term interests.
Governance Activism
Shareholder pressure for greater rights and influence through advisory shareholder proposals are expected to continue in the 2015 proxy season. A study of trends from the 2014 proxy season in Fortune 250 companies by James R. Copland and Margaret M. O’Keefe, Proxy Monitor 2014: A Report on Corporate Governance and Shareholder Activism (available at www.proxymonitor.org), suggests that the focus of most shareholder proposal activity does not relate to concerns that are broadly held by the majority of shareholders:
Shareholder support for shareholder proposals is down, with only four percent garnering majority support, down from seven percent in 2013.
A small group of shareholders dominates the shareholder-proposal process. One-third of all shareholder proposals are sponsored by three persons and members of their families and another 28 percent of proposals are sponsored by investors with an avowed social, religious or public-policy focus.
Forty-eight percent of 2014 proposals at Fortune 250 companies related to social or political concerns. However, only one out of these 136 proposals received majority support, and that solitary passing proposal was one that the board had supported.
Institutional Shareholders Services Inc. (“ISS”) is far more likely to recommend in favor of shareholder proposals than the average investor is to support them.
Nonetheless, the universe of shareholder proposals included in corporate proxy statements pursuant to Rule 14a-8 has grown significantly over the years. In addition, the coercive power of advisory shareholder proposals has expanded as a result of the policy of proxy advisors to recommend that their clients vote against the re-election of directors who fail to implement advisory shareholder proposals that receive a majority of votes cast. Directors should carefully assess the reasons underlying shareholder efforts to use advisory proposals to influence the company’s strategic direction or otherwise change the board’s approach to matters such as CEO compensation and succession, risk management, governance structures and environmental and social issues. Shareholder viewpoints provide an important data set, but must be understood in the context of the corporation’s best interest rather than the single lens of one particular constituency.
….
__________________________________
*Holly J. Gregory is a partner and co-global coordinator of the Corporate Governance and Executive Compensation group at Sidley Austin LLP.
Comment le comité d’audit contribue-t-il à la stratégie de l’entreprise ?
C’est le sujet abordé par Laurent Giguère, associé Audit chez KPMG, dans cet excellent article dont je vous propose la lecture.
Voici le questionnement qui a donné naissance à cet article :
Au cours de la dernière décennie, le comité d’audit a surtout mis l’accent sur la conformité, la gouvernance et diverses questions d’approbation. Toutefois, dans la plupart des cas, les comités d’audit d’aujourd’hui ont établi des cadres de surveillance rigoureux qui permettent de consacrer moins de temps à la surveillance. Les comités d’audit ont-ils ainsi l’occasion de se pencher sur de nouveaux domaines? Voilà la question qui se pose. Compte tenu de l’évolution du rôle du comité d’audit dans la surveillance des risques, y a-t-il des domaines nouveaux dans lesquels le comité d’audit peut améliorer la qualité de la surveillance?
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un extrait de l’article qui traite des moyens utilisés pour obtenir la bonne information.
L’efficacité stratégique du comité d’audit dépend, dans une certaine mesure, de sa capacité de bien comprendre les indicateurs clés de performance de l’organisation, de même que de la question de savoir si ces indicateurs respectent et appuient les objectifs stratégiques d’ensemble. Étant donné que le comité d’audit a récemment mis l’accent sur la surveillance de l’information financière, il pourrait ne pas s’être investi autant dans ce domaine qu’il ne l’aurait fait autrement.
Toutefois, le comité d’audit a maintenant la chance d’améliorer le « dialogue en matière de finances » entre le conseil d’administration et la direction concernant la façon dont les systèmes de gestion évaluent la performance. Les comités d’audit favorisent également cet objectif en déployant des efforts accrus pour que des experts opérationnels les aident à mieux comprendre l’entreprise elle-même et à déterminer les indicateurs clés de performance les plus efficaces.
Compte tenu de ces défis et de l’ampleur considérable des enjeux qui entourent le risque financier, les comités d’audit semblent être les seuls à être qualifiés pour discuter de certaines questions, notamment les suivantes :
Quels sont les objectifs de performance quantifiés que nous devons évaluer?
De quelle façon pouvons-nous les surveiller à l’avenir?
Quels sont les contrôles en place?
À quel point nos systèmes et nos contrôles sont-ils solides?
Nos systèmes permettent-ils de mesurer ces indicateurs clés de la performance?
Procédons-nous régulièrement à un examen des indicateurs clés de la performance afin de déterminer leur pertinence?
Procédons-nous à un examen rétrospectif des résultats obtenus par rapport aux objectifs établis dans les plans sur trois ou cinq ans?
Pouvons-nous arriver à obtenir une combinaison optimale d’expertise financière et opérationnelle afin de répondre aux préoccupations de façon globale?
Devrions-nous faire appel à des experts externes afin d’élargir la discussion?
Devrions-nous avoir recours aux connaissances opérationnelles des membres du conseil d’administration qui ne font pas partie du comité d’audit?
Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) offre un cours haut de gamme en gouvernance des PME destiné aux chefs d’entreprise, hauts dirigeants, investisseurs et administrateurs appelés à siéger sur les conseils d’administration ou sur les comités consultatifs de PME. Cette formation, offerte les 24 et 25 février prochains à Montréal, a pour objectifs de :
Réfléchir et échanger entre chefs d’entreprise, haut-dirigeants, investisseurs et administrateurs de PME sur les pratiques de gouvernance les mieux adaptées et les plus efficaces pour ce type d’entreprise.
Poser un regard réaliste sur la gouvernance actuelle et future des PME.
Outiller les participants afin de faciliter les transformations nécessaires à la pérennité et/ou la croissance des PME les concernant.
Voici une liste des billets en gouvernance les plus populaires publiés sur mon blogue en 2014.
Cette liste constitue, en quelque sorte, un sondage de l’intérêt manifesté par des dizaines de milliers de personnes sur différents thèmes de la gouvernance des sociétés. On y retrouve des points de vue bien étayés sur des sujets d’actualité relatifs aux conseils d’administration.
Les dix (10) articles les plus lus du Blogue en gouvernance ont fait l’objet de plus de 1 0 000 visites.
Que retrouve-t-on dans ce blogue et quels en sont les objectifs ?
Ce blogue fait l’inventaire des documents les plus pertinents et récents en gouvernance des entreprises. La sélection des billets est le résultat d’une veille assidue des articles de revue, des blogues et sites web dans le domaine de la gouvernance, des publications scientifiques et professionnelles, des études et autres rapports portant sur la gouvernance des sociétés, au Canada et dans d’autres pays, notamment aux États-Unis, au Royaume-Uni, en France, en Europe, et en Australie.
Je fais un choix parmi l’ensemble des publications récentes et pertinentes et je commente brièvement la publication. L’objectif de ce blogue est d’être la référence en matière de documentation en gouvernance dans le monde francophone, en fournissant au lecteur une mine de renseignements récents (les billets quotidiens) ainsi qu’un outil de recherche simple et facile à utiliser pour répertorier les publications en fonction des catégories les plus pertinentes.
Quelques statistiques à propos du blogue Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé
Ce blogue a été initié le 15 juillet 2011 et, à date, il a accueilli plus de 125 000 visiteurs. Le blogue a progressé de manière tout à fait remarquable et, au 31 décembre 2014, il était fréquenté par plus de 5 000 visiteurs par mois. Depuis le début, j’ai œuvré à la publication de 1 097 billets.
En 2015, on estime qu’environ 5 500 personnes par mois visiteront le blogue afin de s’informer sur diverses questions de gouvernance. À ce rythme, on peut penser qu’environ 70 000 personnes visiteront le site du blogue en 2015.
On note que 44 % des billets sont partagés par l’intermédiaire de LinkedIn et 44 % par différents engins de recherche. Les autres réseaux sociaux (Twitter, Facebook et Tumblr) se partagent 13 % des références.
Voici un aperçu du nombre de visiteurs par pays :
Canada (64 %)
France, Suisse, Belgique (20 %)
Magreb (Maroc, Tunisie, Algérie) (5 %)
Autres pays de l’Union Européenne (2 %)
États-Unis (2 %)
Autres pays de provenance (7 %)
En 2014, le blogue Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé a été inscrit dans deux catégories distinctes du concours canadien Made in Blog (MiB Awards) : Business et Marketing et médias sociaux. Le blogue a été retenu parmi les dix (10) finalistes à l’échelle canadienne dans chacune de ces catégories, le seul en gouvernance.
Vos commentaires sont toujours grandement appréciés. Je réponds toujours à ceux-ci.
Voici le plus récent mémo de Martin Lipton*, associé fondateur de la firme Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, spécialisée dans les affaires de fusions et acquisition, qui présente une longue liste d’événements et de publications montrant les effets dévastateurs des attaques des fonds activistes sur l’actionnariat, les autres parties prenantes et l’économie en général.
L’auteur avance que les trois dernières années ont vu un accroissement de l’intensité des actions menées par les « Hedge Funds ».
Si l’évolution de ce débat vous intéresse et que vous croyez que les activistes de tout acabit nuisent à la saine gouvernance des grandes sociétés, vous serez certainement comblés par les arguments invoqués par une multitude d’experts, de firmes spécialisées, d’universitaires, d’autorités règlementaires, etc.
Voici l’introduction à ce court article paru hier sur le site du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.
Again in 2014, as in the two previous years, there has been an increase in the number and intensity of attacks by activist hedge funds. Indeed, 2014 could well be called the “year of the wolf pack.”
With the increase in activist hedge fund attacks, particularly those aimed at achieving an immediate increase in the market value of the target by dismembering or overleveraging, there is a growing recognition of the adverse effect of these attacks on shareholders, employees, communities and the economy.
Noted below are the most significant 2014 developments holding out a promise of turning the tide against activism and its proponents, including those in academia.
___________________________________________
*Martin Lipton* is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy.
Nous assistons à un intérêt accru des problématiques de gouvernance depuis les vingt dernières années.
En fait, au cours de ma carrière universitaire comme professeur de management, les notions de gouvernance étaient très peu abordées, sinon carrément ignorées.
Pourquoi ? Parce que l’on enseignait le management, c’est-à-dire la gestion, surtout la gestion stratégique, qui relevait de la haute direction; les effets de la gouvernance n’étaient perçues qu’à travers les activités de conformité des CA, de manière plutôt traditionnelle et figée; la direction des entreprises ne semblait imputable qu’envers les actionnaires, pas envers les parties prenantes ! Et les actionnaires étaient loin …
Le PDG (PCD) est nommé par le conseil d’administration, élu annuellement lors de l’assemblée des actionnaires. Celle-ci est très bien organisée car le PDG veille au grain !
Nos organisations étaient laissées au bon vouloir des hauts gestionnaires, sans pratiquement aucune intervention du CA.
Les choses ont changées dramatiquement depuis que les autorités règlementaires ont réaffirmé le rôle souverain des administrateurs et que les experts de la gouvernance ont mis en place des programmes de formation renouvelés et adaptés.
L’article ci-dessous, publié sur le blogue de David Doughty* traite des défis qui attendent les coaches, les mentors et les consultants appelés à travailler avec les conseils d’administration du futur.
Voici un article très intéressant qui montre qu’on ne peut pas évaluer une entreprise uniquement en prenant en compte la valeur de ses actions, au moment présent.
Cet article publié par John Rekenthaler*, et paru sur le site de Morningstar.com, montre que l’actionnaire n’est pas le seul maître à bord et que les dirigeants doivent considérer plusieurs autres parties prenantes dans l’établissement de la valeur d’une organisation. La société civile doit aussi se rallier à cette idée.
Les arguments développés dans cet article indiquent que la contre-attaque des tenants de la bonne gouvernance est en marche … et qu’ils auront probablement gain de cause !
Je vous invite à lire l’extrait ci-dessous et à consulter l’article pour plus de détails.
Another way of viewing the matter is to compare the results of the U.S. stock market with those of the major European marketplaces. As previously mentioned, shareholder-value theory has been most influential in the U.S., somewhat less so in the United Kingdom, and largely ignored in continental Europe. Can this pattern be seen in the 30-year market returns? Apparently not…
Over the past two years, the barrage has intensified. Both The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times have published articles criticizing shareholder value, the Times on multiple occasions. The discussion has gone thoroughly mainstream.
It also is making its way into money-management circles–an audience that historically has been among the strongest supporters of shareholder value. Earlier this month, James Montier of GMO published a white paper calling shareholder value “the world’s dumbest idea. » He assembles several charts in support of his contention that the practice damages the long term by overemphasizing the short term. Montier’s recommendation is the same as Stout’s: acknowledging that companies have multiple constituencies.
Summary
Two questions: Will the backlash strengthen and, if so, what might that mean for investors?
For the first question, a tentative yes. The current orthodoxy has been in place for several decades. While it has not been proved wrong, neither has it made a convincing case for itself. Yes, many particularly slow-growing and asset-rich companies have been transformed through the notion of shareholder value–often with excellent benefits for stock owners (although not necessarily for those companies’ employees). But it’s not clear that the typical firm has fared better by having its managers constantly measured by stock-market returns. Thus, the questions will continue.
As for the second question, I suspect the answer is « not much in aggregate. » Some companies likely will perform less well, as their managements relax when not having their feet held to the fire. Others likely will meet Montier’s expectations by improving their prospects through increased investment, as managements will be willing to take more chances on long-term investments. Overall, then, I would expect that a change in the shareholder-value mind-set would not much affect U.S. stock-market averages.
It is possible, however, that it might improve the prospects of active mutual fund managers. If corporate managers are afforded more freedom to reward (and hire) employees, increase capital investment, and/or purchase more businesses, then they have more rope with which to either create something of value or hang themselves. Perhaps the astute fund manager will be able to distinguish between the bad and good corporate managements.
Perhaps. It’s only a wink of hope, but after the annus horribilis for active managers that was 2014, a wink is as good as a nod.
_____________________________________
*John Rekenthaler has been researching the fund industry since 1988. He is now a columnist for Morningstar.com and a member of Morningstar’s investment research department.
Aujourd’hui, je partage avec vous une belle histoire de succession d’une entreprise familiale mondialement connue : Heineken.
Ce cas d’entreprise m’a été proposé par Paul Michaud, un administrateur de sociétés certifié (ASC), une personne expérimentée dans les situations de transferts d’entreprises familiales.
Comme Paul le mentionne : « C’est un cas intéressant ! Le bonhomme est un hybride entre un entrepreneur et un CEO, la fille entre la mère-au-foyer et CEO ».
Je vous invite donc à lire ce cas de relève d’entreprise familiale publié par Patricia Sellers dans Fortune.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, quelques certaines conclusions tirées du cas. C’est une belle lecture du temps des Fêtes !
For anyone who oversees a family business, passing it on to the next generation is the ultimate challenge of leadership. “If we get that wrong, we’ve wasted our energy on all that we’ve built,” says Michel de Carvalho, the investment banker husband of Charlene Heineken.
The de Carvalho family (from left): Alexander, Michel, Charlene, Louisa, Charles, Sophie, and Isabel
Heineken has a stock market value of $44 billion, and Charlene aims to pass on her 25% ownership stake and control of the voting shares more prudently than her father, Freddy Heineken, did to her. So she and Michel have been diligently studying the best practices of passing on a family business. No matter the size of a dynasty, certain basic rules apply.
CHOOSE ONE.
Other billionaire owners of family businesses have advised the de Carvalhos, regardless of how they divvy up the wealth, to select one of their five children to take control of the company. “But Charlene and I are not yet convinced that we could not have an odd number, perhaps three,” admits Michel, noting that ownership may be a lonely job for one heir. “Had Charlene not been married to someone who has a strong interest in the business, it would have been a terrible burden.”
TEST THE CHILDREN.
Don’t trap them,” says Byron Trott, a former Goldman Sachs banker whose merchant bank, BDT & Co., invests in and advises closely held companies. “Allow them to find their passion.” Trott admires the way the de Carvalhos are getting their five children to define their interests, whether philanthropic, arts-related, or corporate. Meanwhile, they’re preparing eldest son Alexander, who works in private equity, to inherit control of Heineken. “He’s on the board. He’s working in the financial industry,” notes Trott. “He understands the rigor of opting in.”
PICK STRONG ADVISERS.
Freddy Heineken stocked his board with yes men, which weakened the company before -Charlene inherited control in 2002. Charlene and Michel’s advice to Alexander or whoever among their children eventually takes control: “Surround yourself with the best possible people who are not yes men and sycophants. You want people who express doubt.”
HOLD ON.
Family control of a business protects management from “the short-term whims of Wall Street,” enabling it to focus on long-term growth, says Trott. “These companies tend to outperform the market over long periods of time.” Trott advises the de Carvalhos: “Keep doing what you’re doing, because you’re doing it very well.” —P.S.
Voici un article qui met en exergue les qualités que les conseils d’administration veulent voir chez les futurs membres de la haute direction.
L’article, écrit par Lauren Weber dans les pages du The Wall Street Journal, relate un extrait de l’entrevue avec Gary Burnison, PCD de Korn/Ferry International, à propos de la recherche de talents en management à l’échelle internationale.
Le marché de la recherche des meilleurs talents de gestionnaires est en pleine expansion; il représente un marché d’environ 20 Milliards.
Toutes les grandes firmes font affaires avec des entreprises spécialisées dans la recherche des meilleurs talents, dans l’évaluation de ces derniers ainsi que dans leur rétention. De grandes firmes comme Korn/Ferry International possèdent des banques de données très à jour sur les carrières des hauts dirigeants ainsi que des outils de recherche à la fine pointe.
On est donc intéressé à connaître le point de vue du président et chef de la direction de la plus grande entreprise (1 Milliard par année) sur la croissance du marché et sur les qualités des candidatures recherchées.
On y apprend que les C.A. sont préoccupés par la plus grande diversité possible, par des candidats qui sont constamment en processus d’apprentissage, qui possèdent plusieurs réseaux d’affaires, qui savent bien s’entourer et qui ont fait leurs preuves dans des situations de gestion similaires. Le partenaire stratégique du PCD doit être le V-P Ressources humaines … et non le V-P Finance.
Je vous invite à lire l’extrait ci-dessous. Bonne lecture !
WSJ: Your executive-search business was up in the first quarter by 9%. Are companies investing in growth, or are they mostly replacing people who leave?
Mr. Burnison: Industries like health care, technology and energy are going through massive change, and it’s going to continue for the foreseeable future. That creates a need for new positions, whether it’s about delivering health care remotely or finding new ways to tap people instantaneously through social media. Those needs didn’t exist a decade ago.
WSJ: Executive search seems like an old-fashioned, Rolodex business. Are LinkedIn and other social-networking tools going to make it obsolete?
Mr. Burnison: CEOs are in this mad fight for growth and relevancy, so they’re paying us not for finding people, but for finding out who people are. You can go lots of places to find people. But you’re going to want somebody to answer, “Okay, but what is this person really like? What do others really say about them?”
WSJ: How do you answer those questions?
Mr. Burnison: For the boardroom or the C-suite, the technical competencies are a starting point. What we’ve seen through our research is that the No. 1 predictor of executive success is learning agility. So we want to get a real line of sight into a person’s thinking style and leadership style. Right now, you’re seeing me how I want you to see me. What you really want to know is “How does Gary make decisions under pressure?”
WSJ: What is learning agility?
Mr. Burnison: It comes down to people’s willingness to grow, to learn, to have insatiable curiosity. Think about the levers of growth that a CEO has. You can consolidate, or tap [new markets], or innovate. When it comes down to the last two, particularly innovation, you want a workforce that is incredibly curious.
WSJ: What are companies getting wrong today about managing their employees?
Mr. Burnison: There’s this gap between what [executives] say and how they invest in people’s careers. They spend an enormous amount on development and performance management, but it’s not well spent.
WSJ: Where are they investing poorly in talent?
Mr. Burnison: They should be asking, how do you develop people in their careers? How do you extend the life of an employee? This is not an environment where you work for an organization for 20 years. But if you can extend it from three years to six years; that has enormous impact. [Turnover] is a huge hidden cost in a profit-and-loss statement that nobody ever focuses on. If there was a line item that showed that, I guarantee you’d have the attention of a CEO.
WSJ: Why aren’t CEOs focused on turnover?
Mr. Burnison: A CEO only has an average tenure today of five years. You have 20 quarters to show that you have a winning team. There is a trade-off between knowing in your heart that you’ve got to empower people, you’ve got to develop them. But then there’s the other side, that says, “Oh, my gosh. I’ve got to win this next game.”
WSJ: How should leaders look beyond the short-term horizon?
Mr. Burnison: The strategic partner to the CEO should be the CHRO [chief human-resources officer] in almost any organization. It shouldn’t be the CFO. The person that is responsible for people should be the biggest lever that a CEO can pull. Too often, it’s not.
WSJ: You’ve been CEO for seven years. Is the clock ticking?
Mr. Burnison: We’re all by definition “on the clock.” However, that ticking clock should never impede the journey. I am having a lot of fun and there is still an enormous amount of work to be done.
WSJ: You’re pushing to create more management products for companies. Why, and what are they?
Mr. Burnison: People are hard to scale. [Products are] very easy to scale. It’s going to be based on predictors of success. By culture, by industry, by function, around the world. It could be a program for how we assess and develop people. It could be licensing a piece of content around onboarding or hiring. Candidates could take an online assessment. You would get feedback and you could license our interviewing technology to say, “With this person, you may want to probe this area and this area when you’re interviewing them.”
WSJ: What do your search clients ask for most often?
Mr. Burnison: The No. 1 request we get in the search business is diversity. Diversity in thought. Diversity in backgrounds. Diversity, yes, in gender. Diversity yes, in race. Diversity, yes in terms of cultural upbringing. That’s got serious legs.
the influence of shareholder initiatives, including advisory proposals and votes. Time will tell whether, over the long term, tipping the balance to greater shareholder influence will prove beneficial for corporations, their shareholders and our economy at large. In the near term, there is reason to question whether increased shareholder influence on matters that the law has traditionally apportioned to the board is at the expense of other values that are key to the sustainability of healthy corporations.
Pour l’instant, l’orientation qui sera adoptée par les organismes de normalisation est incertaine compte tenu des commentaires reçus et des principes proposés à l’origine dans l’énoncé de principes. Restez à l’affût des renseignements qui suivront, car les Conseils collaborent en vue d’améliorer l’orientation future des normes comptables pour les organismes sans but lucratif! Si vous souhaitez prendre connaissance de certains ou de tous les commentaires reçus à l’égard de l’énoncé de principes, visitez le site Web des Normes d’information financière et de certification (www.nifccanada.ca).
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 