Catégorie : Rémunération de la direction

Tendances en gouvernance et CA du futur | PwC’s 2014 Annual Corporate Directors Suveys


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.

Trends shaping governance and the board of the future | PwC’s 2014 Annual Corporate Directors Suveys

Board performance takes center stage

 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

 

Étude du Conference Board sur les récentes interventions des actionnaires activistes


Comme vous le savez, je suis désireux d’être au fait des derniers développements eu égard aux interventions des actionnaires activistes car je pense que ce mouvement peut avoir des conséquences positives sur la gouvernance des sociétés, même si le management a tendance à se défendre âprement contre les « intrusions des actionnaires activistes et opportunistes »

L’article ci-dessous, paru sur le site du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, nous fait part d’une récente étude du Conference Board* sur l’évolution du phénomène de l’activisme aux É.U.

L’étude en question, Proxy Voting Analytics (2010-2014), montre que le mouvement, loin de s’essouffler, a continué d’avoir un impact significatif sur les relations entre les actionnaires et les dirigeants des grandes entreprises américaines.

Voici donc un résumé des faits saillants de cette étude. Bonne lecture !

The Recent Evolution of Shareholder Activism

Proxy Voting Analytics (2010-2014), a report recently released by The Conference Board in collaboration with FactSet, reviews the last five years of shareholder activism and proxy voting at Russell 3000 and S&P 500 companies.

Data analyzed in the report includes:

  1. Shareholder activism, including proxy fights, exempt solicitations, and other public agitations for change.
  2. Most frequent activist funds and their tactics.
  3. Volume, sponsors, and subjects of shareholder proposals.IMG00571-20100828-2241
  4. Voted, omitted, and withdrawn shareholder proposals.
  5. Voting results of shareholder proposals.
  6. Shareholder proposals on executive compensation.
  7. Shareholder proposals on corporate governance.
  8. Shareholder proposals on social and environmental policy.
  9. Volume and subjects of management proposals.
  10. Failed say-on-pay proposals among Russell 3000 companies.
  11. Say-on-pay proposals that received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast.

Additional insights (including volume by index, industry, and sponsor, most frequent sponsors, and support levels) are offered with respect to key issues from the last few proxy seasons, including: majority voting; board declassification; supermajority vote requirements; independent board chairmen; proxy access; sustainability reporting; political issues; election of dissident’s director nominee.

The report pays special attention to trends and developments that have emerged in the last few months. In fact, what started as an unremarkable proxy voting season has blossomed into a series of developments that may influence annual general meetings for years to come.

There is a clear indication that activist investors are turning their attention to new issues. For example, in the Russell 3000, five investor-sponsored proposals restricting golden parachutes received the support of a majority of shareholders. While the volume remains low, it is the highest ever recorded on this topic and it signals that voting on executive compensation issues other than say on pay can still find its way to general meetings of shareholders. Political spending and lobbying activities, a topic virtually absent from voting ballots until a few years ago, became the most frequently submitted shareholder proposal type of 2014, with 86 voted proposals and five receiving more than 40 percent of votes cast (compared to only one in 2013). Finally, support for resolutions on proxy access reached a tipping point in the first six months of the year, with five proposals approved and four receiving more than 40 percent of votes cast in favor.

The advisory vote on executive compensation was a game changer for corporate/investor relations and, in 2014, more than ever before, shareholders have been pursuing opportunities to engage with senior management and be heard ahead of a shareholder meeting. This trend was reflected in the rate of withdrawals of shareholder proposals, which doubled from a few years ago as companies chose to preempt a vote on certain investor requests by voluntarily implementing their own reforms. It was not all a product of engagement, however, and guidelines on board responsiveness from proxy advisory firm ISS also drove the surge of management proposals on issues previously raised by activists.

Increased dialogue with senior executives and board members as well as the progress made by many large companies in the adoption of baseline corporate governance practices prompted large institutional investors to reconsider their role as agents of corporate change. For example, while some public pension funds such as the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) cut back significantly on their submissions in 2014, others such as the New York City Employees’ Retirement Systems remained prolific proponents and galvanized around proxy access requests. Similarly, the popularity of social and environmental policy issues observed this year is in part explained by the larger number of proposals filed by labor-affiliated investment funds, which, before the introduction of mandatory say on pay, had always concentrated on executive compensation issues. Despite the traditional focus of this type of fund on industrial sectors, in 2014, for the first time, more than 20 percent of the 86 proposals submitted by labor unions were directed at companies in the finance industry.

Social media and other new technologies allow a broad outreach that was unimaginable only a few years ago, and activists are perfecting their use. This year, a growing number of activist investors, especially hedge funds, have agitated for change without even filing a shareholder proposal, let alone waging a proxy fight. Despite the increase in activism campaign announcements, there was a sensible decline in the number of campaigns related to shareholder meetings held in the first six months of 2014. This decline suggests that, rather than urge other shareholders to oppose a director election or vote for a certain resolution, these activism campaign announcements now serve to publicize the investor’s view of the business strategy or organizational performance. It is a first step that may lead to the future filing of a proposal or the solicitation of proxies but that may also prove sufficient to persuade the company to seek dialogue and reach a compromise.

The following are the major findings of the report:

Although activism campaign announcements in the Russell 3000 were up in 2014, the number of campaigns related to a shareholder meeting declined, as some hedge funds chose to agitate for change without even filing a shareholder proposal.

 

Observations made in 2013 that hedge funds were starting to set their sights on larger companies appear disputed by numbers for 2014, when a sharp decline in activism campaign volume was recorded among S&P 500 companies.

 

Proxy contests were the only type of activist campaign related to a shareholder vote to increase among Russell 3000 companies in 2014, with a concentration in the retail trade and finance industries, and dissidents reported their highest success rates in years.

 

Engagement between corporations and investors has not curbed the most hostile forms of activism, as the volume of proposals to elect a dissident’s nominee remains fairly high.

 

Shareholder proposal volume was slightly lower this year, with a sharper decline among larger companies as investors focus on new topics and broaden their targets.

 

Excess cash on US companies’ balance sheets fueled the growth of the activist hedge fund industry, and the number of resolutions sponsored by hedge funds surpassed the record levels of 2008.

 

The 2014 proxy season marked another sharp year-over-year decline in the number of proposals submitted by multiemployer investment funds affiliated with labor unions, as those investors showed new interests, especially in social and environmental policy issues.

 

Proposals on corporate governance, once a stronghold for pension funds, were sharply reduced as more companies introduced engagement policies with large investors.

 

Shareholder resolutions on social and environmental policy rose to unprecedented levels, while some institutional investors dropped governance issues that were a staple of their past activity but never garnered widespread support.

 

The rate of withdrawals of shareholder proposals doubled from a few years ago as companies preempted some of the issues by voluntarily implementing their own reforms.

 

As large groups of institutional investors reduced their 14a-8 filings or shifted their attention to new and less popular topics, the percentage of voted proposals winning the support of a majority of shareholders reached a new low.

 

Proposals on board declassification and majority voting have become a sure bet for labor unions and public pension funds, as they are widely recognized as a baseline in corporate governance.

 

A surge in requests from corporate gadflies made the separation of CEO and chairman roles the top shareholder proposal topic by volume, but the institutional investment community remains skeptical of a one-size-fits-all approach to board leadership.

 

For the first time in the same proxy season, five investor-sponsored proposals restricting golden parachutes received majority support, signaling that voting on executive compensation issues other than say on pay may still find its way to the AGM.

 

 hareholder proposals on political spending and lobbying activities skyrocketed this year, with five receiving more than 40 percent of votes cast (compared to only one in 2013).

 

Support for shareholder proposals on proxy access rights reached a tipping point in 2014, with five proposals approved and four others receiving the support of more than 40 percent of votes cast, and a handful of companies submitted board-sponsored proposals.

 

Say-on-pay analysis confirms a significant turnover in failed votes, with several companies losing the confidence of their shareholders this year after winning the vote by a wide margin in 2013.

__________________________________________________

*Matteo Tonello is vice president at The Conference Board. This post relates to a report released jointly by The Conference Board and FactSet, authored by Dr. Tonello and Melissa Aguilar of The Conference Board. The Executive Summary is available here (the document is free but registration is required).

Débat sur la contribution des actionnaires activistes au sein des conseils d’administration


Voyez le panel de discussion sur les aspects pratiques liés aux activités des actionnaires activistes, diffusé par la National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD).

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 !

Activist Shareholders in the Boardroom

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, , , and Andrew Shapiro discuss the issues around strategy and corporate governance at an NACD board leadership conference.NACDlogo

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.

Les failles du benchmarking dans l’établissement des rémunérations !


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 !

The death of salary benchmarking

 

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.

P1020617

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. 

Une perspective française sur le « Say on Pay » et la réalité de la transparence


Ce matin, je porte à votre attention une courte vidéo produite par la chaîne française Xerfi Canal qui aborde le sujet du « Say on Pay », une importation du système réglementaire américain.

Entendez le point de vue de l’expert français Philippe Portier, avocat-associé au cabinet JeantetAssociés, qui répond aux questions Thibault Lieurade sur l’efficacité de ce dispositif appliqué au système de gouvernance français.

Quel est votre avis sur l’application de certaines mesures de gouvernance dans un contexte culturel différent ?

Voici une brève description du contenu. Bon visionnement !

Depuis la mi-2013 en France, les actionnaires des entreprises cotées assujetties au code de gouvernance AFEP-MEDEF émettent un avis sur les rémunérations des dirigeants. C’est le principe du Say on Pay.

L’objectif théorique est double :

(1) limiter l’inflation jugée inacceptable socialement des rémunérations des dirigeants et

(2) redonner du pouvoir aux actionnaires.

Rémunération des dirigeants : « say on pay » et transparence réelle

 

Philippe-Portier-Remuneration-des-dirigeants-say-on-pay-et-transparence-reelle
Philippe Portier | Rémunération des dirigeants : « say on pay » et transparence réelle

Toute la lumière sur les attentes envers les C.A. | L’état de situation selon Lipton


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 Spotlight on Boards

 

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.IMG_20140523_112914

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

Communications entre administrateurs et actionnaires concernant la rémunération des hauts dirigeants !


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.IMG_20140515_134920

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. 

Le point de vue sans équivoque de l’activiste Carl Icahn


Depuis quelques années, on parle souvent d’activistes, d’actionnaires activistes, d’investisseurs activistes ou de Hedge Funds pour qualifier la philosophie de ceux qui veulent assainir la gouvernance des entreprises et redonner une place prépondérante aux « actionnaires-propriétaires » !

Pour ceux qui sont intéressés à connaître le point de vue et les arguments d’un actionnaire activiste célèbre, je vous invite à lire l’article écrit par Carl Icahn le 22 août sur son site Shareholders’ Square Table (SST).

Vous aurez ainsi une très bonne idée de cette nouvelle approche à la gouvernance qui fait rage depuis quelque temps.

Je vous invite aussi à lire l’article de Icahn qui s’insurge contre la position de Warren Buffet de ne pas intervenir dans la décision de la rémunération globale « excessive » à Coke, suivi de la réponse de Buffet.

My article from Barron’s on Warren Buffett’s abstention from a vote on Coke’s executive-pay plan

À vous de vous former une opinion sur ce sujet ! Bonne lecture !

The Bottom Line | Carl Icahn

Among other things, I’m known to be a “reductionist.”  In my line of work you must be good at pinpointing what to focus on – that is, the major underlying truths and problems in a situation.  I then become obsessive about solving or fixing whatever they may be. This combination is what perhaps has lead to my success over the years and is why I’ve chosen to be so outspoken about shareholder activism, corporate governance issues, and the current economic state of America. IMG00570-20100828-2239

Currently, I believe that the facts “reduce” to one indisputable truth which is that we must change our system of selecting CEOs in order to stay competitive and get us out of an extremely dangerous financial situation.  With exceptions, I believe that too many companies in this country are terribly run and there’s no system in place to hold the CEOs and Boards of these inadequately managed companies accountable. There are numerous challenges we are facing today whether it be monetary policy, unemployment, income inequality, the list can go on and on… but the thing we have to remember is there is something we can do about it: Shareholders, the true owners of our companies, can demand that mediocre CEOs are held accountable and make it clear that they will be replaced if they are failing.

I am convinced by our record that this will make our corporations much more productive and profitable and will go a long way in helping to solve our unemployment problems and the other issues now ailing our economy.

…….

Laxisme et passivité au conseil d’administration | La situation en G-B


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, l’extrait d’un article très pertinent publié par Dina Medland , laquelle couvre le domaine de la gouvernance dans Forbes, qui fait état d’une entrevue conduite avec le professeur de Gouvernance Andrew Kakabadse, de la Henley Business School de Grande-Bretagne.

L’article met le doigt sur le conservatisme (et le traditionalisme) crasse des administrateurs qui siègent sur les conseils d’administration en Grande-Bretagne. L’attitude de non-intervention de plusieurs administrateurs conduit à un sérieux manque d’innovation dans la gouvernance des entreprises anglaises (UK).

Trouve-t-on le même laxisme et la même résistance aux changements dans nos organisations nord-américaines ?

Personnellement, je ne crois pas que ce soit à la même échelle mais les conseils d’administration souffrent beaucoup du manque de questionnement de leurs membres. Il y a, ici aussi, trop de passivité eu égard aux questions d’orientation de l’entreprise ainsi qu’aux actions de la direction.

Je vous invite donc à lire ce court article et à partager votre point de vue sur le sujet. Bonne lecture !

There Is A Crying Need For Innovation In Boardrooms

Andrew Kakabadse has built a reputation for sharp, insightful commentary on the boardrooms of publicly listed companies. Professor of Governance and Leadership at Henley Business School since last summer, he has spoken out before now on the declining worth of non-executive directors.

In an interview with me in April 2013, he suggested many non-executive directors in the UK’s boardrooms were ‘of little or no value to the business.’ Particularly scathing about the UK, he said : “We have a culture where we don’t ask questions.”

Dina Medland
Dina Medland, Contributrice pour Forbes

We also have a boardroom culture in the UK where we believe that “if it has worked fine for hundreds of years, why change it?” It is part and parcel, it seems of a national love of ritual – at which we clearly excel. The world’s love for very British celebrations -often involving members of the Royal family, horses, logistical feats of military planning and discipline and split-second timing- bears testimony to that. But the flip side of that seems to be that innovation is both rare, and resisted.

It is worth noting, therefore, that ICSA, the professional body for company secretaries – who are required for listed companies in the UK – chose Professor Kakabadse to undertake a piece of research on The Company Secretary, with a view to finding a way to progress the value of the role. (Note: for transparency, the software arm of ICSA which provides technology solutions for the boardroom is the commercial sponsor of my blog Board Talk but has no editorial control on input).

“On average, UK boards consist of 9 to 11 members, if whom the majority are over the age of 50. Fewer than half of these board members had had a job description and the chairman is very likely to be white, male and over the age of 60. Barriers to diversity remain firmly set throughout most boardrooms in the country” says the report.

It says the management and governance realities of boards indicate “animosity, a lack of intimacy with strategy, and poor communication” when it comes to top team strategy. Board and executive relations are “non-cohesive” when it comes to “shaping/negotiation of strategy, open interaction and trust.” Board members are described as “out of touch” – with “reality, markets and employees, unclear member role and contribution, productivity of meetings, engagement with the executive.”

……

Que faire quand la confiance entre le conseil et la direction est faible ? | Le cas d’une OBNL


Voici un cas qui origine du blogue australien de Julie Garland McLellan et qui intéressera certainement tous les membres de conseils d’administration d’OBNL.  J’ai choisi de partager ce cas en gouvernance avec vous car je crois que celui-ci évoque trop souvent les situations vécues par certaines organisations à but non lucratif.

Ce cas présente la situation réelle d’une entreprise dont les liens de confiance entre le C.A. et la direction se sont effrités.

Qu’en pensez-vous ? Que feriez-vous à la place de Jake ? Quelle analyse vous semble la plus appropriée dans notre contexte ? Que pensez-vous des analyses effectuées par les trois experts ?

« Boards operate best when each director trusts each other director to adhere to the jointly accepted governance processes and policies as well as the relevant laws and regulations. This month our real life case study considers what to do when that trust is lost. Consider: What would you advise a friend to do under these circumstances ? »

 

Que faire quand la confiance est perdue ?

 

« Jake is a club chairman. The former chairman resigned after a major disagreement with the rest of the board which arose because the former chairman signed a major contract. When the board discovered what had happened they were furious that a large decision had been made without involving them. The former chairman stormed from the meeting and resigned in writing the following morning.

The Board then acted without a formal chair, directors took turns to chair the meetings, until the next election. During this time the board rewrote the by-laws which previously allowed the chairman to sign contracts after verification by the treasurer that doing so would not lead to insolvency. They adopted new by-laws that stated no director, including – for absence of doubt – the chairman and/or treasurer, could commit the club to any contract, expenditure or course of action unless approved in a duly constituted board meeting.P1110362

Jake was not previously on the board and was elected unopposed after being invited by the treasurer to stand for election. He is a successful businessman but has no experience with consensual board decision-making. He has now discovered that the club is wallowing because recent decisions have not been made in a timely fashion. His fellow directors are numerous, factionated and indecisive. The CEO has low delegations and the constitution envisages that the chairman, CEO and treasurer should make decisions between meetings and use the board to ratify strategy, engage members and provide oversight. The amended by-laws prevent the constitution from working but don’t provide an alternative workable model.

The board reacted with horror to a suggestion that they soften the new by-laws but don’t appear willing to improve their own performance so the club can operate under the new by-laws. Staff performance reviews and bonuses are soon to be agreed and Jake is fairly certain that his board will not make rational decisions or support the CEO’s recommendations. He knows that he needs to act decisively to avert disaster but doesn’t know where to start.

How can Jake create an environment that allows for effective management of the club before this situation spirals out of control? »

Séparation des fonctions de président du conseil et de chef de la direction : retour sur un grand classique !


Voici le deuxième billet présenté par le professeur Ivan Tchotourian de la Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval, élaboré dans le cadre de son cours de maîtrise Gouvernance de l’entreprise.

Dans le cadre d’un programme de recherche, il a été proposé aux étudiants non seulement de mener des travaux sur des sujets qui font l’actualité en gouvernance de l’entreprise, mais encore d’utiliser un format original permettant la diffusion des résultats. Le présent billet expose le résultat des recherches menées par Nadia Abida, Arnaud Grospeillet, Thomas Medjir et Nathalie Robitaille.

Ce travail revient sur les arguments échangés concernant la dissociation des fonctions de président du conseil d’administration et de chef de la direction. Ce billet alimente la discussion en faisant une actualité comparative des normes et des éléments juridiques, et en présentant les dernières statistiques en ce domaine.

Le papier initial des étudiants a été retravaillé par Nadia Abida afin qu’il correspondre au style du blogue . Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires et vos points de vue sont les bienvenus.

« Je vous en souhaite bonne lecture et suis certain que vous prendrez autant de plaisir à le lire que j’ai pu en prendre à le corriger. Merci encore à Jacques de permettre la diffusion de ce travail et d’offrir ainsi la chance à des étudiants de contribuer aux riches discussions dont la gouvernance d’entreprise est l’objet ».  (Ivan Tchotourian)

 

Séparation des fonctions de président du conseil et de chef de la direction : retour sur un grand classique

 

Nadia Abida, Arnaud Grospeillet, Thomas Medjir, Nathalie Robitaille

Anciens étudiants du cours DRT-6056 Gouvernance de l’entreprise

 

La séparation entre les fonctions de président du conseil d’administration (CA) et du chef de la direction est l’un des facteurs incontournables de l’indépendance des administrateurs. Cette dernière est un indicateur de pratique de bonne gouvernance d’entreprise. Cependant, et malgré l’importance avérée de la séparation des deux fonctions, nombre d’entreprises continuent à en pratiquer le cumul. Les arguments foisonnent de part et d’autre, et ne s’accordent pas sur la nécessité de cette séparation.

redaction-des-statuts-de-sa

Un retour sur une proposition d’actionnaires de la banque JP Morgan démontre la nécessité de ne pas laisser ce sujet sans réflexions. Cette proposition en faveur d’une séparation des fonctions a été émise à la suite d’une divulgation par la société d’une perte s’élevant à 2 milliards de dollars… perte essuyée sous la responsabilité de son PDG actuel [1].

Ce n’est un secret pour personne que cette société a un passif lourd avec des pertes colossales engendrées par des comportements critiquables sur lesquels la justice a apporté un éclairage. Les conséquences de cette gestion auraient-elles été identiques si une séparation des pouvoirs avait était mise en place entre une personne agissant et une personne surveillant ?

 

Silence du droit et positions ambiguës

 

Les textes législatifs (lois ou règlements) canadiens, américains ou européens apportent peu de pistes de solution à ce débat. La plupart se montrent en effet silencieux en ce domaine faisant preuve d’une retenue étonnamment rare lorsque la gouvernance d’entreprise est débattue. Dans ses lignes directrices [2], l’OCDE – ainsi que la Coalition canadienne pour une saine gestion des Entreprises dans ses principes de gouvernance d’entreprise [3] – atteste pourtant de l’importance du cloisonnement entre les deux fonctions.

De ce cloisonnement résulte l’indépendance et l’objectivité nécessaires aux décisions prises par le conseil d’administration. Au Canada, le comité Saucier dans son rapport de 2001 et le rapport du Milstein center [4] ont mis en exergue l’importance d’une telle séparation. En comparaison, la France s’est montrée plus discrète et il n’a pas été question de trancher dans son Code de gouvernement d’entreprise des sociétés cotées (même dans sa version amendée de 2013) [5] : ce dernier ne privilégie ainsi ni la séparation ni le cumul des deux fonctions [6].

 

Quelques chiffres révélateurs

 

Les études contemporaines démontrent une nette tendance en faveur de la séparation des deux rôles. Le Canadian Spencer Stuart Board Index [7] estime qu’une majorité de 85 % des 100 plus grandes entreprises canadiennes cotées en bourse ont opté pour la dissociation entre les deux fonctions. Dans le même sens, le rapport Clarkson affiche que 84 % des entreprises inscrites à la bourse de Toronto ont procédé à ladite séparation [8]. Subsistent cependant encore de nos jours des entreprises canadiennes qui  permettent le cumul. L’entreprise Air Transat A.T. Inc en est la parfaite illustration : M. Jean-Marc Eustache est à la fois président du conseil et chef de la direction. A contrario, le fond de solidarité de la Fédération des travailleurs du Québec vient récemment de procéder à la séparation des deux fonctions. Aux États-Unis en 2013, 45 % des entreprises de l’indice S&P500 (au total 221 entreprises) dissocient les rôles de PDG et de président du conseil. Toutefois, les choses ne sont pas aussi simples qu’elles y paraissent : 27 % des entreprises de cet indice ont recombiné ces deux rôles [9]. Évoquons à ce titre le cas de Target Corp dont les actionnaires ont refusé la dissociation des deux fonctions [10].

 

Il faut séparer les fonctions !

 

Pendant longtemps, il a été d’usage au sein des grandes sociétés par actions, que le poste de président du conseil soit de l’apanage du chef de la direction. Selon les partisans du non cumul, fusionner ces deux fonctions revient néanmoins à réunir dans une seule main un trop grand pouvoir et des prérogatives totalement antagonistes, voir même contradictoires. En ce sens, Yvan Allaire [11] souligne qu’il est malsain pour le chef de la direction de présider aussi le conseil d’administration. Rappelons que le CA nomme, destitue, rémunère et procède à l’évaluation du chef de la direction. La séparation des deux fonctions trouve pleinement son sens ici puisqu’elle crée une contre mesure du pouvoir : le président du CA est chargé du contrôle permanent de la gestion, et le directeur général est en situation de subordination par rapport au CA.

Sous ce contrôle, le directeur général ne peut être que plus diligent et prudent dans l’exercice de ses fonctions, puisqu’il doit en rendre compte au CA. Des idées et décisions confrontées et débattues sont de loin plus constructives que des décisions prises de manière unilatérale. N’y a-t-il pas plus d’esprit dans deux têtes que dans une comme le dit le proverbe ? De plus, les partisans du non cumul avancent d’autres arguments. Il en va ainsi de la rémunération de la direction. Le cumul des deux fonctions irait de pair avec la rémunération conséquente. Celui qui endosse les deux fonctions est enclin à prendre des risques qui peuvent mettre en péril les intérêts financiers de la société pour obtenir une performance et un rendement qui justifieraient une forte rémunération. Par ailleurs, le cumul peut entrainer une négligence des deux rôles au profit de l’un ou de l’autre. Aussi, le choix du non cumul s’impose lorsque l’implication de la majorité ou encore, de la totalité des actionnaires ou membres dans la gestion quotidienne de la société, est faible. Cette séparation permet en effet aux actionnaires ou aux membres d’exercer une surveillance adéquate de la direction et de la gestion quotidienne de ladite société [12].

 

Attention à la séparation !

 

Nonobstant les arguments cités plus haut, la séparation des deux fonctions ne représente pas nécessairement une meilleure gestion du conseil d’administration. Les partisans du cumul clament que non seulement l’endossement des deux fonctions par une seule personne unifie les ordres et réduit les couts de l’information, mais que c’est aussi un mécanisme d’incitation pour les nouveaux chefs en cas de transition. Cela se traduit par la facilité de remplacer une seule personne qui détient les deux pouvoirs, à la place de remplacer deux personnes. Par ailleurs, la séparation limiterait l’innovation et diluerait le pouvoir d’un leadership effectif [13] en augmentant la rivalité entre les deux responsables pouvant même aller jusqu’à semer la confusion.

 

Coûts et flexibilité du choix

 

En dépit de la critique classique du cumul des fonctions, les deux types de structures sont potentiellement sources de bénéfices et de coûts, bénéfices et coûts que les entreprises vont peser dans leur choix de structure. Les coûts de la théorie de l’agence impliquent des arrangements institutionnels lorsqu’il y a séparation entre les fonctions de président et de chef de la direction [14]. Ces coûts sont occasionnés par exemple par la surveillance du CA sur le chef de la direction. Il devient plus cher de séparer les deux fonctions que de les unifier.

Cependant, une antithèse présentée par Andrea Ovans [15] soutient qu’au contraire il est plus cher d’unifier les deux fonctions que de les séparer. Comment ? Simplement à travers la rémunération (salaire de base, primes, incitations, avantages, stock-options, et les prestations de retraite). L’imperméabilité entre les deux fonctions qui apparaît comme « la » solution en matière de bonne gouvernance pourrait ne pas l’être pour toutes les entreprises.

Si le cumul des fonctions et les autres mécanismes de surveillance fonctionnement bien, pourquoi faudrait-il prévoir un changement ? De surcroit, le « one size fits all » n’est pas applicable en la matière. Devrait-on prévoir les mêmes règles en termes de séparation pour les grandes et petites entreprises ? Rien n’est moins sûr… Le cumul des fonctions apparaît plus adapté aux entreprises de petite taille : ceci est dû à la fluidité de communication entre les deux responsables et à la faiblesse de la quantité d’informations à traiter [16].

[1] Investors seek to split JP Morgan CEO, Chairman http://www.wfaa.com/news/business/192146051.html, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 12 Juillet 2014.

[2] http://www.oecd.org/fr/gouvernementdentreprise/ae/gouvernancedesentreprisespubliques/34803478.pdf, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 12 juillet 2014. Dans le même sens, voir l’instruction générale 85-201 et le rapport Cadbury en 1992.

[3] CCGG : Principes de gouvernance d’entreprise pour la mise en place de conseils d’administration performants, http://www.ccgg.ca/site/ccgg/assets/pdf/Principes_de_gouvernance.pdf, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 12 juillet 2014

[4] « Split CEO/Chair Roles: The Geteway to Good Governance? », http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/ResearchCentres/ClarksonCentreforBoardEffectiveness/CCBEpublications/SplitCEO.aspx, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 18 juillet 2014.

[5] Code de gouvernement d’entreprise des sociétés cotées (révisé en juin 2013), http://www.medef.com/fileadmin/www.medef.fr/documents/AFEP-MEDEF/Code_de_gouvernement_d_entreprise_des_societes_cotees_juin_2013_FR.pdf, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 15 juillet 2014.

[6] L’Union européenne ne s’est pas prononcée sur la séparation des deux fonctions. Voir à ce propos Richard Leblanc.

[7] Canadian Spencer Stuart Board Index 2013, https://www.spencerstuart.com/~/media/Canadian-Board-Index-2013_27Jan2014.pdf, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 12 Juillet 2014 ; p. 19.

[8] Public Submissions on Governance Issues, http://www.powercorporation.com/en/governance/public-submissions-governance-issues/may-12-2014-canada-business-corporations-act/#_ftn12, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 18 juillet 2014.

[9] Spencer Stuart Board Index 2013 (US), https://www.spencerstuart.com/~/media/PDF%20Files/Research%20and%20Insight%20PDFs/SSBI13%20revised%2023DEC2013.pdf, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 25 juillet 2014.

[10] Target shareholders narrowly reject splitting CEO, Chairman posts, http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2014/06/13/target-shareholders-narrowly-reject-splitting-ceo.html, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 18 juillet 2014.

[11] Yvan Allaire, « Un « bon » président du CA ? », http://droit-des-affaires.blogspot.ca/2007/11/un-bon-prsident-du-ca.html, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 23 juillet 2014.

[12] À ce propos, voir André Laurin, « La fonction de président de conseil d’administration », http://www.lavery.ca/upload/pdf/fr/DS_080203f.pdf, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 21 juillet 2014, p. 2.

[13] Aiyesha Dey, Ellen Engel and Xiaohui Gloria Liu, « CEO and Board Chair Roles: to Split or not to Split? », December 16, 2009, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1412827, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 22 juillet 2014.

[14] Idem.

[15] Voir Coûts élevés associés à la combinaison des rôles du président du conseil et du président de la société : https://jacquesgrisegouvernance.com/2014/06/29/couts-eleves-associes-a-la-combinaison-des-roles-du-president-du-conseil-et-du-president-de-la-societe/, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 21 juillet 2014.

[16] Aiyesha Dey, « What JPMorgan Shareholders Should Know About Splitting the CEO and Chair Roles », Research, http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/05/research-what-jpmorgan-shareho/, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 21 juillet 2014.

Les investisseurs réclament plus d’engagement et d’ouverture de la part du conseil d’administration


 

 

Les investisseurs et les actionnaires réclament avec de plus en plus d’insistance la possibilité d’engager des communications avec les administrateurs.

L’article d’Andrew Ross Sorkin*  publié dans  DealBook Column du NYT rappelle les principaux arguments des actionnaires activistes et des investisseurs institutionnels qui militent en faveur de cette exigence ainsi que les raisons traditionnelles qui amènent les conseils d’administration à rester à l’écart de ces récentes demandes.

Je crois, comme l’auteur, que les entreprises publiques doivent adopter des politiques qui encadrent clairement le processus d’engagement entre actionnaires/investisseurs et administrateurs de sociétés. Voici un extrait de cet article. Bonne lecture !

Investors to Directors, ‘Can We Talk?’

What if lawmakers never spoke to their constituents?

Oddly enough, that’s exactly how corporate America operates. Shareholders vote for directors, but the directors rarely, if ever, communicate with them.

Within the clubby world of directors, communicating with shareholders, big or small, is overtly frowned upon: “We endorse the principle that direct engagement involving directors should not be a routine method of engagement for most U.S. companies and for most investors,” according to the Conference Board Governance Center Task Force on Corporate/Investor Engagement.

That’s why it was so unusual for the chairmen of at least 1,000 large United States public companies to receive a letter this month from a group of shareholders representing more than $10 trillion in assets with a demand: Talk to us. The letter, signed by representatives of some of the biggest investment groups, including BlackRock, Vanguard and Calstrs, insisted that boards open up.

“Engagement between public company directors and their company’s shareholders is an idea whose time has come,” wrote the group, known as the Shareholder-Director Exchange. “We believe that U.S. public companies, in consultation with management, should consider formally adopting a policy providing for shareholder-director engagement.”

P1120327

What was uncommon about the letter was that it came not from activist investors like Carl C. Icahn or William A. Ackman, but from institutional investors that until recently had traditionally always supported whatever a company’s board recommended. Now, those investors want a dialogue.

The reason boards have long shunned speaking with investors is multifaceted. Management — the chief executive, chief financial officer and so on — usually have meetings with the company’s biggest shareholders. Some directors avoid meetings. worried about speaking with one voice. Most don’t consider it their responsibility. Some are anxious about accidentally disclosing sensitive information. A memo to directors on this topic from the law firm Latham & Watkins was explicitly titled “Dangerous Talk?”

Some chief executives are insecure and don’t want shareholders to get too close to their boards for fear they will have undue influence. After all, most directors rely directly on management and their presentations to understand what’s going on inside the company and what shareholders think.

And then there is this: “Many top executives seem to think that board members cannot be trusted with such interactions,” according to Harvard Business Review. “Yet if directors cannot be trusted to meet with and listen to shareholders, how can they be expected to competently govern a corporation?”

…..

Vous pouvez également lire la lettre d’un investisseur institutionnel à l’intention du conseil d’administration, en particulier à l’attention du président du conseil, parue dans le Financial Times du 25 juillet 2014. Vous devrez vous inscrire pour consulter les pages du FT.

Investors want direct access to the boardroom

________________________________________________

*Andrew Ross Sorkin is the editor at large of DealBook.

Les relations d’amitié entre un administrateur et son PCD (CEO) peuvent influer sur ses obligations de diligence !


Voici un compte rendu, paru dans le NYT, d’un article scientifique, publié dans The Accounting Review en juillet 2014, qui montre que les administrateurs ayant des relations d’amitié avec le président et chef de la direction (PCD) de l’entreprise sont moins enclins à exercer une supervision serrée des activités de la direction.

Cependant, le fait de divulguer ces relations personnelles n’a pour effet de raffermir les devoirs de diligence et de vigilance des administrateurs, mais sert plutôt de prétexte pour les dédouaner en leur permettant d’être encore plus tolérants des actions de leur PCD.

Les auteurs tirent deux conclusions de ces résultats : (1) le fait de divulguer des conflits ou des relations personnelles n’élimine pas les conséquences négatives reliées à cette divulgation et (2) les actionnaires doivent se méfier des liens trop étroits que certains administrateurs entretiennent avec leur PCD.

Rappelons-nous que trop près n’est pas préférable à trop loin. Un juste équilibre doit s’imposer !

L’étude “Will Disclosure of Friendship Ties between Directors and CEOs Yield Perverse Effects? » a été conduite par Jacob M. Rose et Anna M. Rose de Bentley University, Carolyn Strand Norman de Virginia Commonwealth University et Cheri R. Mazza de Sacred Heart University. En voici quelques extraits. Bonne lecture !

 

 The C.E.O. Is My Friend. So Back Off

 

…

But the research makes a counterintuitive finding as well. The conventional wisdom holds that when you disclose personal ties, you create transparency and better governance. The experiment found that when social relationships were disclosed as part of director-independence regulations, board members didn’t toughen their oversight of their chief-executive pals. Rather, the directors went easier on the C.E.O., perhaps believing that they had done their duty by disclosing the Relationship.

IMG_20140515_121841

…

Now for the results: Among the directors who counted the C.E.O. as a friend, 46 percent said they would cut research and development by one-quarter or more to ensure a bonus payout to their pal. By contrast, only 6 percent of directors with no personal ties to the chief executive agreed to reduce research and development to generate a bonus.

That’s to be expected.

The results get more interesting when disclosure is added to the mix.  An astonishing 62 percent of directors who disclosed a friendship with the C.E.O. said they would cut $10 million or more from the budget — the amount necessary to generate a bonus.  Only 28 percent of the directors who had not disclosed their relationship with the executive agreed to make the cuts necessary to generate a bonus.

Only one director with no ties to the executive agreed to cut the budget by $10 million or more.

Mr. Rose, an author of the paper, said he and his colleagues were surprised that so many directors said they’d be willing to put the company at risk to ensure a bonus for their pal, the C.E.O. “If just by mentioning that you’re friends with the C.E.O. it affects their decision-making, we think the effects going on in the real world are much, much larger than what we picked up in the lab,” Mr. Rose said in an interview last week.

Even more disturbing, he said, was that so many directors seemed to think that disclosing their friendships with the C.E.O. gave them license to put the executive’s interests ahead of the company’s.

“When you disclose things, it may make you feel you’ve met your obligations,” Mr. Rose said. “They’re not all that worried about doing something to help out the C.E.O. because everyone has had a fair warning.”

…

L’État de l’audit interne à l’échelle internationale | Rapport 2014 de Thompson Reuters Accelus


Denis Lefort, CPA,  expert-conseil en Gouvernance, audit et contrôle, vient de me faire parvenir l’édition 2014 de l’étude Thompson Reuters Accelus sur l’audit interne.

Ce sondage identifie des observations intéressantes pour la profession d’auditeur interne :

(1) Seulement un peu plus de 27% des services d’audit interne vérifient les processus de gouvernance de leur organisation;

(2) Il y a encore des écarts importants de perception entre les services d’audit interne et les comités d’audit quant aux priorités que devraient être celles des services d’audit interne;

(3) Les auditeurs internes investissent 45% de leur temps pour l’audit de la sécurité des TI;

(4) Près de 50% des services d’audit interne interagissent maintenant avec les autres fonctions d’assurance de leur organisation (Conformité, Gestion des risques, etc…).

Ce document sera donc très utile à tout administrateur soucieux de parfaire ses connaissances de l’état de la situation en 2014 dans le monde.

Bonne lecture. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus. Voici le sommaire de l’étude.

 

 ÉTAT DE L’AUDIT INTERNE – RAPPORT 2014 DE THOMSON REUTERS ACCELUS

 

Thomson Reuters Accelus’ annual State of Internal Audit Survey provides an insight into the experiences and expectations of internal audit professionals around the world. More than 900 internal audit practitioners across 50 countries participated in the 2014 survey sharing their views across a range of subjects, issues and concerns. The experiences shared in this report are intended to help internal audit functions and senior management benchmark the myriad of challenges faced and enable them to leverage the approach taken by their peers.

The survey has demonstrated that the world and work of internal audit continues to be as complex, and challenging as ever. Both the volume and diversity of issues that internal auditors need to understand and assess continues to increase globally and across all industries.

In fact, at a high level the results of the Thomson Reuters Accelus State of Internal Audit Survey have remained relatively unchanged for the last few years.IMG_20140521_164057

This year the results confirmed that the vast majority (81 percent) of internal auditors’ focus remains on providing assurance on the efficacy of internal control process. While assurance work is the traditional mainstay of internal audit there are a wide range of other areas and issues for internal auditors to consider, including:

(1) Nearly a quarter (24 percent) of internal auditors expect their personal liability to increase in 2014. The adequacy of internal auditors’ skills, focus and approach is firmly on the radar of regulators worldwide. It is no surprise, therefore, that internal auditors expect their own personal liability to increase in the near future.

(2) Nearly half (49 percent) of all internal auditors have had no involvement in assessing their firm’s culture. There are distinct regional variations with respondents from South America reporting that three-quarters (77 percent) of internal auditors have not assessed the culture of their firm.

(3) Just over a quarter (27 percent) of internal auditors have had no involvement in assessing their firm’s corporate governance; regionally this figure looks most concerning for North America, with 32 percent of internal auditors having no involvement.

4) Internal auditors spend 45 percent of their time on IT security and risk. Nearly half (48 percent) of respondents said that it should be a top priority for their organization and 35 percent said it would be a top challenge for boards of directors in 2014.

(5) Nearly half of the respondents (48 percent) expect to be spending more time reporting to senior management and tracking remedial actions. This is in addition to almost a quarter (24 percent) of internal auditors anticipating a need to focus on the implementation of industry-specific legislation.

(6) Nearly half of internal auditors interact with risk management (44 percent) and compliance (47 percent) on at least a monthly basis. While these figures are a slight improvement on last year it remains an area where improvements could be made.

(7) It is interesting that areas not considered a priority for internal audit included customer outcomes (6 percent), whistle-blowing (5 percent) and capital and liquidity (4 percent).

(8) Internal auditors’ perception of priorities for the board are not aligned with their own. The key challenges for internal auditors are greater complexity of issues and focus on risk and control, as well as changing business models. In contrast, boards’ priorities are corporate strategy, strategic risk management and legal and regulatory risk.

The growing focus which policymakers and regulators have been placing on culture, corporate governance and risk management has emphasized still further the need for a strong, well-resourced independent audit function operating, and in particular reporting, in close coordination with other risk and compliance functions, all with visible support from the top of the organization. Yet the results show a relatively unchanged picture in these areas from previous years. As the risks increase so does the need for internal audit to react to those changes.

 

Coûts élevés associés à la combinaison des rôles du président du conseil et du président de la société


Andrea Ovans, senior editor du Harvard Business Review, a récemment publié un article d’actualité en gouvernance dans HBR Blog Network. L’auteure fait le point sur les études concernant la séparation des pouvoirs entre le PCD et les PCA.

Sa conclusion est qu’il n’y a pas de différences significatives dans le rendement des firmes, sauf lorsque l’on analyse la situation à long terme. Dans ce cas, la séparation des rôles est favorable (40 % vs 31 %) sur une période de 5 ans. L’auteure conclue que la réalisation de rendements supérieurs à long terme, lorsque les fonctions sont séparées, vient de la situation vécue par des entreprises aux prises avec les carences de leurs PCD (CEO).

Sinon, selon Mme Ovans, les résultats seront les mêmes peu importe le système de gouvernance que les actionnaires adopteront ! C’est évidemment une conclusion qui va à l’encontre des principes de bonne gouvernance. Qu’en pensez-vous ?

Il y a cependant un coût élevé à combiner les deux rôles. Le tableau présenté dans le texte ci-dessous est éloquent !

Bonne lecture !

 

The Cost of Combining the CEO and Chairman Roles

Will Netflix’s shareholders be sorry that they voted to let Reed Hastings carry on as both CEO and chairman? A look through the research on combining and separating out the two roles suggests that, much like most splits in life, the answer is… complicated.

Netflix’s shareholders notwithstanding, most people assume the right answer is to keep the two roles separate, in the interests of diversity of thinking and proper CEO oversight. And that’s how pretty much every research report starts — before going on to explain why it probably isn’t so.

Back in 2006, for instance, in an article in our magazine entitled “Before You Split that CEO/Chair…,” Robert Pozen, chairman (but not CEO) of a Boston-based investment management firm, cited three studies from three different countries (the U.S., the U.K., and Switzerland) which each found no statistically significant difference in terms of stock price or accounting income between companies that split the roles and those that combined them. These findings echoed dozens of previous ones going as far back as 1996.

Harvard Law School Langdell Library in Cambrid...
Harvard Law School Langdell Library in Cambridge, Mass. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yet over the same period, a steady stream of business thinkers and practitioners offered up reasons (if not data) for why splitting the two roles could cause trouble. In 2003, for instance, in “In Defense of the CEO Chair,”Harvard Law’s William Allen and William Berkeley (who was chairman and CEO of the eponymous insurance holding company) argued that doing so would create two armed camps that would interfere with productivity. Two years later, Jay W. Lorsch and Andy Zelleke similarly argued in the Sloan Management Review that splitting the two roles blurs lines of responsibility, distracts both parties, and creates power struggles.

Maybe that’s why the 2012 research from Matthew Semadeni and Ryan Krause at the University of Indiana’s Kelley School was so widely reported as suggesting that the roles should not be split unless the company is doing badly. But a closer look shows the findings have more in common with the “it doesn’t make any difference” camp than the headlines would suggest.

The study looked at three scenarios, all of which involved what happens when a combined CEO/chair is split. In the first, a sitting CEO/chair gives up the CEO role but remains chairman, essentially making the incoming CEO an apprentice. In the second, the incumbent CEO/chair leaves (voluntarily or not), and the positions are filled with two separate people. In the third, a CEO/chair remains CEO but gives up the chair to another (what the researchers referred to as a demotion). In that last circumstance, if the company was in difficulties, the data indicated that splitting the two roles, so that someone could ride herd over a less-than-ideal CEO, made a positive difference. But in the first two cases, once again, the data found no difference in company fortunes. From this, Krause drew a general if-ain’t-broke-don’t-fix-it conclusion, not because splitting the roles would cause harm but because when a company is doing well, it doesn’t appear to matter which model you follow.

That same year, though, a more obscure study from GovernanceMetrics International, highlighted by the Harvard Law School Forum, approached the question from a different angle, tracking not just the effects but the costs of splitting the two roles.

The 2012 study looked at 180 North American corporations with a market capitalization of $20 billion or more. Given the complexities of running such large businesses, it was thought, differences in cost and performance of different leadership structures would be especially marked.

And differences there were. Surprisingly, combining the two roles cost more than splitting them – much more. Median total compensation (base salary, bonus, incentives, perks, stock, stock options, and retirement benefits) of executives holding both positions was $16 million. That was nearly 60% more than the median combined compensation ($10.6 million) awarded to the two individuals in companies in which the positions were split.  Considering that median income for the chair-only position was just under $500,000, it’s hard not to avoid drawing the conclusion that the order-of-magnitude $5.4 million extra the CEO receives for taking on the additional chairmanship duties is rather a lot. This impression is further strengthened by the fact that the median income for non-independent chairs was $630,930 — more than 50% higher than the $417,910 for independent chairs (making a company run by a separate CEO and independent chair a real bargain).

highcostofacombined

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One might argue that differences in compensation reflect differences in corporate performance, and if that’s the case, it would be a strong argument for combining the two roles. That was so in this study – but only in the short term. Median one-year shareholder returns for companies in which the roles are combined were an impressive 11.65%, compared with a distinctly anemic 2.27% for those in which the roles were separate. Over time, however, performance for the first group lagged and the other improved such that shareholders shelling out for a combined CEO/chair received five-year returns of 31.3% while their counterparts, paying considerably less to both their CEO and chair, were enjoying an even more impressive 39.96% return.

howcompanieswith

 

 

 

 

 

Put all of these finding together, and perhaps the only conclusion one can draw is that the higher long-term returns for companies in which the roles are separate come from struggling companies that take steps to address the inadequacies of their CEOs (or that lower returns in companies where the roles are combined come from allowing a poor CEO too much latitude for too long).

Otherwise, most of the research suggests that Netflix’s fortunes, like most companies, will be what they will be – regardless of whichever governance system the shareholders vote in.

Articles reliés :

Bien comprendre les droits et responsabilités des actionnaires de sociétés !


Ci-dessous, l’extrait d’un article très simple sur les devoirs attendus de la part des actionnaires. Si vous avez décidé d’investir dans une entreprise, vous possédez une part de la propriété de celle-ci !

Il est donc important de lire la documentation fournie par le conseil d’administration et par la direction de l’entreprise afin de vous former une opinion sur sa gouvernance, et vous devriez vous faire un devoir d’exercer vos droits de votes.

L’article récemment publié par The Canadian Press saura-t-il éveiller chez vous le sens de la responsabilité de l’actionnaire ? En ce qui me concerne, j’ai décidé, il y a quelques années, de me faire un devoir de lire les documents préparatoires à l’AGA et de voter, par la poste, sur les items de l’ordre du jour qui sollicitent l’assentiment des actionnaires.

 

Understand your rights as a shareholder: experts – Business – The Telegram

 

Documents sent to shareholders ahead of the meeting can include the management proxy circular, annual information form and the company’s annual report. The information form and annual report give the financial statements and an update by management on the business and the direction for the company — both key documents for shareholders.

Walmart Shareholders' Meeting 2011
Walmart Shareholders’ Meeting 2011 (Photo credit: Walmart Corporate)

The proxy circular includes information related to the annual meeting, including the nominees for the board of directors and the appointment of the auditors. It can also include shareholder proposals or major changes at the company that require shareholder approval.

Eleanor Farrell, director of the Office of the Investor at the Ontario Securities Commission, says shareholders have the right to vote on matters that affect the company, including the election of the board of directors. “That is a very important governance piece for the company,” Farrell says.

“The board is the one that approves the strategic plan. It sets the direction of the company. They appoint the CEO, they evaluate the CEO and they also approve the compensation plan.” Farrell says if shareholders don’t approve of a nominated director they can withhold their vote and, at most large companies, if a majority of the votes cast withhold a vote for a particular director, that director would be forced to step aside.

“Shareholders in the last few years have certainly become and gotten a lot more powerful and a lot more powers, I would say,” Farrell said. “Corporate governance has been a very big concern for institutional investors, certainly, and companies are much more concerned about corporate governance.”

The information circulars also include detailed descriptions about how much the company’s directors receive in compensation and what the senior executives are paid in salary, shares or options, as well as the size of their bonuses and the value of any other perks. The circular will also include how the board arrived at that compensation as well as comparisons with previous years. Certain provisions, such as how much a chief executive will receive if the company is taken over or if they are let go, are also often included.

 

Related articles

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


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

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

J’ai demandé à KPMG de me procurer une version française du même document mais il ne semble pas en exister. Bonne lecture en ce début d’été 2014.

The Directors Toolkit

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

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

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

Key topics :

The Directors' Toolkit cover

Duties and responsibilities of a director

Oversight of strategy and governance

Managing shareholder and stakeholder expectations

Structuring an effective board and sub-committees

Enabling key executive appointments

Managing productive meetings

Better practice terms of reference, charters and agendas

Establishing new boar

______________________________________

* En reprise

Article relié :

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

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


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

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

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

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

TED2013_0072528_D41_4986
TED2013_0072528_D41_4986 (Photo credit: TED Conference)

La vidéo met l’accent sur les problématiques liées :

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

TED2013_0072492_D41_4950
TED2013_0072492_D41_4950 (Photo credit: TED Conference)

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

_____________________________________

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

** En reprise

Articles reliés au thème :
Enhanced by Zemanta

Un guide essentiel pour comprendre et enseigner la gouvernance | Version française *


Plusieurs administrateurs et formateurs me demandent de leur proposer un document de vulgarisation sur le sujet de la gouvernance. J’ai déjà diffusé sur mon blogue un guide à l’intention des journalistes spécialisés dans le domaine de la gouvernance des sociétés à travers le monde.

Il a été publié par le Global Corporate Governance Forum et International Finance Corporation (un organisme de la World Bank) en étroite coopération avec International Center for Journalists.

Je n’ai encore rien vu de plus complet et de plus pertinent sur la meilleure manière d’appréhender les multiples problématiques reliées à la gouvernance des entreprises mondiales. La direction de Global Corporate Governance Forum m’a fait parvenir le document en français le 14 février.

Qui dirige l’entreprise : Guide pratique de médiatisation du gouvernement d’entreprise – document en français

 

Ce guide est un outil pédagogique indispensable pour acquérir une solide compréhension des diverses facettes de la gouvernance des sociétés. Les auteurs ont multiplié les exemples de problèmes d’éthiques et de conflits d’intérêts liés à la conduite des entreprises mondiales. On apprend aux journalistes économiques – et à toutes les personnes préoccupées par la saine gouvernance – à raffiner les investigations et à diffuser les résultats des analyses effectuées.

Je vous recommande fortement de lire le document, mais aussi de le conserver en lieu sûr car il est fort probable que vous aurez l’occasion de vous en servir.

Vous trouverez ci-dessous quelques extraits de l’introduction à la version anglaise de l’ouvrage que j’avais publiée antérieurement.

Who’s Running the Company ? A Guide to Reporting on Corporate Governance

 

À propos du Guide

English: Paternoster Sauqre at night, 21st May...

« This Guide is designed for reporters and editors who already have some experience covering business and finance. The goal is to help journalists develop stories that examine how a company is governed, and spot events that may have serious consequences for the company’s survival, shareholders and stakeholders. Topics include the media’s role as a watchdog, how the board of directors functions, what constitutes good practice, what financial reports reveal, what role shareholders play and how to track down and use information shedding light on a company’s inner workings. Journalists will learn how to recognize “red flags,” or warning  signs, that indicate whether a company may be violating laws and rules. Tips on reporting and writing guide reporters in developing clear, balanced, fair and convincing stories.

Three recurring features in the Guide help reporters apply “lessons learned” to their own “beats,” or coverage areas:

– Reporter’s Notebook: Advise from successful business journalists

– Story Toolbox:  How and where to find the story ideas

– What Do You Know? Applying the Guide’s lessons

Each chapter helps journalists acquire the knowledge and skills needed to recognize potential stories in the companies they cover, dig out the essential facts, interpret their findings and write clear, compelling stories:

  1. What corporate governance is, and how it can lead to stories. (Chapter 1, What’s good governance, and why should journalists care?)
  2. How understanding the role that the board and its committees play can lead to stories that competitors miss. (Chapter 2, The all-important board of directors)
  3. Shareholders are not only the ultimate stakeholders in public companies, but they often are an excellent source for story ideas. (Chapter 3, All about shareholders)
  4. Understanding how companies are structured helps journalists figure out how the board and management interact and why family-owned and state-owned enterprises (SOEs), may not always operate in the best interests of shareholders and the public. (Chapter 4, Inside family-owned and state-owned enterprises)
  5. Regulatory disclosures can be a rich source of exclusive stories for journalists who know where to look and how to interpret what they see. (Chapter 5, Toeing the line: regulations and disclosure)
  6. Reading financial statements and annual reports — especially the fine print — often leads to journalistic scoops. (Chapter 6, Finding the story behind the numbers)
  7. Developing sources is a key element for reporters covering companies. So is dealing with resistance and pressure from company executives and public relations directors. (Chapter 7, Writing and reporting tips)

 

Each chapter ends with a section on Sources, which lists background resources pertinent to that chapter’s topics. At the end of the Guide, a Selected Resources section provides useful websites and recommended reading on corporate governance. The Glossary defines terminology used in covering companies and corporate governance ».

______________________________________________

* En reprise

Articles reliés :
Enhanced by Zemanta

L’utilisation des huis clos lors des sessions de C.A. *


Voici un article intéressant de Matthew Scott sur le site de Corporate Secretary qui aborde un sujet qui préoccupe beaucoup de hauts dirigeants : le huis clos lors des sessions du conseil d’administration ou de certains comités. L’auteur explique très bien la nature et la nécessité de cette activité à inscrire à l’ordre du jour du conseil.

Compte tenu de la « réticence » de plusieurs hauts dirigeants à la tenue de cette activité, il est généralement reconnu que cet item devrait toujours être présent à l’ordre du jour afin d’éliminer certaines susceptibilités.

Le huis clos est un temps privilégié que les administrateurs indépendants se donnent pour se questionner sur l’efficacité du conseil et la possibilité d’améliorer la dynamique interne; mais c’est surtout une occasion pour les membres de discuter librement, sans la présence des gestionnaires, de sujets délicats tels que la planification de la relève, la performance des dirigeants, la rémunération globale de la direction, les poursuites légales, les situations de conflits d’intérêts, les arrangements confidentiels, etc. On ne rédige généralement pas de procès-verbal à la suite de cette activité, sauf lorsque les membres croient qu’une résolution doit absolument apparaître au P.V.

La mise en place d’une période de huis clos est une pratique relativement récente, depuis que les conseils d’administration ont réaffirmé leur souveraineté sur la gouvernance des entreprises. Cette activité est maintenant considérée comme une pratique exemplaire de gouvernance et presque toutes les sociétés l’ont adoptée.

Notons que le rôle du président du conseil, en tant que premier responsable de l’établissement de l’agenda, est primordial à cet égard. C’est lui qui doit informer le PCD de la position des membres indépendants à la suite du huis clos, un exercice qui demande du tact !

Je vous invite à lire l’article ci-dessous. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.

Are you using in-camera meetings ?

More companies are encouraging candid exchange among independent directors without management present

As corporate boards face more complex and difficult decisions, they may want to consider increasing the use of in-camera meetings to get more ‘realistic’ opinions from directors before moving forward with corporate strategy.

In-camera meetings, as they are called in Canada – or executive sessions, as they are referred to in the US – are special meetings where independent directors or committees of the board convene separately from management to have candid, off-the-record discussions about matters that are important to the company.

English: SOS Meetings Logo
English: SOS Meetings Logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The term ‘In camera’ derives from Latin and refers to ‘in a chamber’ which is a legal term meaning ‘in private.’ During these meetings, independent board members are free to challenge each other and speak their mind freely because minutes are generally not taken. Such meetings could be held to discuss and clarify the board’s position on issues that may produce opposing views between management and the board or to deal with issues that could involve conflicts of interest with management, such as CEO compensation.

‘In-camera meetings allow directors to talk about their view of matters without management present,’ says Jo-Anne Archibald, president of DSA Corporate Services. ‘They can talk about anything related to the company and they don’t have to worry about it being written down anywhere.’

____________________________________

* En reprise