Recrudescence de l’activisme des actionnaires en Europe

Voici un article très bien documenté sur la recrudescence de l’activisme des actionnaires en Europe.

L’actif sous contrôle des activistes européens est passé de 21,7 B $, en 2012, à 27,5 B $, en 2015.

Bonne lecture !

Activist Investing in Europe: A Special Report

The inaugural edition of this report, published nearly two years ago, suggested that so long as opportunities presented themselves, activists would continue to seek governance, strategy and capital allocation reforms from European issuers. Indeed they have. After ebbing briefly in 2014, when only 51 companies were publicly targeted (after 61 in 2012 and 59 in 2013), activism has roared back, with 67 companies targeted in 2015 and 64 in the first half of 2016 alone. Assets under management for European activists have grown slowly in that period—from $21.7 billion in 2012 to $27.5 billion in 2015—suggesting the growth has been funded by new entrants and foreign players.

Even publicity-shy activists who have been working with companies behind closed doors for many years concede that the growth in activism in Europe is accelerating. Some see a cyclical boom, with activists hoping to catalyse M&A. Yet on topics such as remuneration, and with the launch of specialist European activist funds, the change appears built to last. Part of the evolution of activism in Europe has been the success of tactics seen as more common in the U.S., including proxy contests. Although longer-term participants and the bulk of campaigns suggest lowkey, collaborative approaches are still more common, activists are becoming less shy about testing where the boundaries lie.

The five countries covered in detail in this post represent approximately 80% of the companies targeted by activists since 2010, although in the past two-and-a-half years the level has been lower. Outside of their ranks, Scandinavia and the Netherlands are popular hunting grounds, while Southeastern Asset Management picked up a board seat at Spain’s Applus in July.

Future editions of this report will have to find a different flag for the front cover, following the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union. The impact on activism in Europe could be still more profound. In the short period since the referendum, stock markets all over Europe dipped temporarily, creating buying opportunities at export-led companies. Elliott Management, a U.S. hedge fund with a well-established London office, has disclosed four positions since the vote (although it held some as toe-holds previously). Some of these companies were already subject to takeover offers, and Elliott has agitated for higher bids.

Another development, albeit not directly connected with traditional forms of activism, is the rise of activist short selling, where investors bet against a company and attempt to convince investors the stock price will drop. Such campaigns more than doubled from 2014 to 2015, and gained prominence after fuelling sell-offs at the likes of Quindell and Wirecard. Already in the first half of 2016, six companies had been targeted.

The U.S. has seen activism spread beyond a disciplined asset class in recent years. Whether European investors prove to be quite as demanding remains to be seen. But if markets continue to be volatile, opportunities for value investors, arbitrageurs and short sellers will be more plentiful. Recent events suggest there will be opportunists to match.

United Kingdom

Activism has roared back to prominence in the United Kingdom since 2014, with three high-profile proxy battles and the first FTSE 100 company accepting an activist into its boardroom.

ValueAct Capital Partners, a San Francisco-based hedge fund known for its engagements with Adobe and Microsoft, prefers to be seen as a cooperative investor. It generally avoids aggressive tactics such as proxy fights, lawsuits and public letter-writing, preferring testimonials from CEOs it has worked with in the past. Investing in Rolls-Royce Holdings, with its strategically important submarine business and stately shareholders, required a display of deference. As well as hiking its stake to above 10%, the fund worked with new CEO Warren East for over 200 days before its nominee was offered a board seat.

Others have taken less conciliatory paths. Sherborne Investors, defeated in a 2014 proxy contest at Electra Private Equity, raised its stake to 30% before finally winning two board seats the following year. Since then, almost all the other directors have been forced out, and the fund’s external manager served notice. Smoother contests saw victories for Elliott Management at Alliance Trust and the family office of Luis Amaral at Stock Spirits. Yet whereas the former has reformed slowly, attracting potential suitors in the process, the latter has descended into acrimony. The Stock Spirits board may have promised not to engage in acquisitions and to pay a special dividend, but risked conflict by designating the activist nominees non-independent.

Strong shareholder rights, including the ability to call a meeting with just 5% of shares, and a highly liquid and dispersed market, should mean the U.K. continues to be a focal point for activism in Europe. With stocks initially down sharply after the country voted to leave the European Union, a few bargain-hunters may even be preparing campaigns.

Proxy fights have become increasingly common at U.K. companies, with activists claiming a better record of success than in previous years after the Alliance Trust watershed. Toscafund, fighting the first in its 16-year history, will hope that track record continues. Elliott Management has also made merger arbitrage central to its strategy in recent years. Although operational activist Cevian Capital appears to be more focused on Continental Europe, turnarounds at exporters Rolls-Royce Holdings and Meggit are attracting activist attention.

Activism in the U.K. increased steadily after the financial crisis, culminating in the shareholder spring of 2012. Despite a dip thereafter, 2015 and 2016 have seen steadily more activity and this year is expected to be the busiest year yet.

* as of 30th June 2016. Projected full-year figure shown in dotted box.

Easy access to shareholder rights, including meeting requisitions and proposals ensure that smaller companies are always vulnerable to activism. With several well funded and established activists setting up in London, however, large cap companies are starting to draw more attention.

Shareholder Activism—recent developments in the U.K.

Continuing the trend of previous years, the U.K. continues to see the lion’s share of activism in Europe. Over the last 12 months, approximately 43% of all European campaigns were played out in the U.K., according to Activist Insight data. Whilst the traditional mix of activist strategies were deployed, attempts to obtain board representation received most attention and generated most success.

In April 2015, Elliott Management’s criticism of Alliance Trust’s poor performance and high costs resulted in two new non-executive directors (“NED”) being appointed to the latter’s board. At Stock Spirits, Western Gate Private Investment’s (“WGPI”) complaints of “spiraling costs” and a board prone to “group-think” also resulted in the appointment of two NEDs following a shareholder vote. At Rolls- Royce Holdings, too, ValueAct Capital’s complaints regarding a fifth profit warning in two years resulted in a NED appointment for ValueAct’s chief operating officer in return for the promise that ValueAct would not lobby for a break-up of the company, nor increase its stake above 12.5%.

In each of these cases, the activists’ public rationale for supporting NED appointments has been to better long-term results through improved corporate governance and executive scrutiny. Also notable is that in two of the cases mentioned above, new appointments were subject to negotiation and compromise, with the activists accepting limitations on the extent of their directors’ participation in board meetings and board committees.

Board appointments have not gone without criticism, however, particularly regarding the perceived lack of independence of the new directors. Certainly, fears over conflicts of interest can have practical implications. In the case of Rolls-Royce,

ValueAct’s seat on the board was subject to limited rights: it has no ability to propose changes in strategy or management, call a shareholder meeting nor push for mergers or acquisitions. At Stock Spirits, the new NEDs have been prevented from sitting on certain committees and the chairman has publicly stated that they may be asked to leave meetings where commercially sensitive information, such as pricing, is discussed.

The U.K.’s legal, regulatory and political landscape remains supportive of shareholder engagement, and activists will leverage this to reinforce their (shorterterm) theses. Witness the increasing activity of Investor Forum (the “Forum”), whose 40 members own approximately 42% of the FTSE All Share Index. The Forum seeks to promote long-term investment and collective engagement with U.K. companies by its members. In August, after over a year of private engagement with Sports Direct alongside major institutions holding approximately 12% of Sports Direct, the Forum issued a press release calling for a comprehensive and independent review of corporate governance at the company.

Whilst the mechanics for investor engagement have remained largely constant over the last few years in the U.K., the grounds for activist shareholders to demand change remains dynamic. In addition to the traditional activist calling cards of under-par growth, over-inflated executive salaries and deficiencies in corporate governance, Britain’s recent referendum vote to leave the European Union may lead to some boards being challenged on their strategies to cope with Brexit. For so long as activists can continue to find intrinsic, unlocked value in U.K. companies, the facilitative environment and dynamic business conditions will continue to catalyse activism in the U.K.

France

Controlling shareholders, double voting rights and government stakes in key industries make activism a challenging proposition in France, though there is no sign of activists abandoning their ambitions altogether. Last year, Airbus quietly sold its stake in Dassault Aviation in order to buyback shares, a year after The Children’s Investment Fund suggested the move.

Admittedly, not all activists have had such success. Elliott Management is currently in a legal battle with XPO Logistics Europe (formerly Norbert Dentressangle). Although it failed to remove CEO Troy Cooper at this year’s annual meeting, it owns enough to prevent the U.S. parent from delisting the company. In 2015, U.S.-based P. Schoenfeld Asset Management (“PSAM”) acquired a small stake in Vivendi and suggested selling Universal Music Group in order to pay larger dividends. Vivendi Chairman Vincent Bolloré increased his stake and pushed through double voting rights for long-term investors, enhancing his control.

Nonetheless, activism has begun to thrive in France. Electrical parts company Rexel waved goodbye to its CEO just months after Cevian Capital disclosed a stake earlier this year, Carrefour faced another request for board seats, and a merger between Maurel & Prom and MPI saw opposition from U.K. and South African funds. Meanwhile, the Paris-based hedge fund CI-AM has been making a name for itself, attempting to use the courts to stop the takeover of Club Med by China Fosun International and to reshape a licensing agreement between Euro Disney and The Walt Disney Company, to ensure investors in the Paris theme park were adequately compensated.

Activist short selling is also making its presence felt. In December, Muddy Waters Research released a 22-page report on grocery chain Groupe Casino, which it said was “dangerously leveraged, and… managed for the very short term.” Shares were down 11.6% a week after the report was published.

Elliott has already been holding out at Norbert Dentressangle for more than a year, preventing the company from delisting following a takeover bid by XPO Logistics. An attempt to take the chairman role from CEO Troy Cooper at this year’s annual meeting failed, but the company has yet to be delisted–unlike MPI, which has now been merged with Maurel & Prom. Vincent Bolloré shows no signs being slowed down by U.S. activists such as P. Schoenfeld Asset Management, which won dividends but no seat on the board from a 2015 raid. In December, Muddy Waters Research released a much discussed short report on grocer Groupe Casino.

2015 saw a sudden renewal of activist interest in France, coming close to the peak of 2012. So far, 2016 is off to a reasonable start, although it seems the country will continue to be targeted intermittently.

* as of 30th June 2016. Projected full-year figure shown in dotted box.

Activist targets tend to be larger, on average, in France than in other countries, perhaps because they are more likely to be susceptible to international pressure. However, a rising number of campaigns at small cap companies may presage a busier market in future.

France is in the process of strengthening its Say on Pay

The emergence of shareholder activism in France over the last decade has been supported by the development of corporate governance rules and best practices. A number of campaigns following the global financial crisis focused on corporate governance, including the separation of chairmen and CEO roles, management performance and compensation.

Say on Pay was introduced in France in 2013 in the form of a soft law set forth in the corporate governance code applicable to French listed companies (the “AFEP-MEDEF Code”). France opted for an annual non-binding shareholder vote on all forms of compensation paid or granted to the company’s officers, including the chairman (vote consultatif des actionnaires). If compensation is rejected, a board is required to post a release on the company’s website following its next board meeting detailing how it intends to deal with such vote.

As the vote is non-binding, the general view until now is that boards may maintain compensation granted to the company’s officers, even when it is rejected by shareholders, or receives very limited support. In 2016, Renault and Alstom’s CEO compensation gave rise to a negative Say on Pay vote by shareholders. In the case of Renault, the board met immediately after the meeting and decided to confirm the 2015 compensation of the company’s CEO, generating criticism from the French state, which holds a significant stake in Renault, and politicians, as well as questions on the efficacy of French Say on Pay.

Following the Renault controversy, a public consultation was launched in order to, amongst other things, strengthen the Code’s Say on Pay provisions. The proposed new wording (likely to be in force from September 2016), is somewhat more restrictive than that currently in force, as it contemplates an express obligation for the board to amend the relevant officers’ compensation for the previous year or the company’s management compensation policy for the future. The French government also proposed in early June in a bill currently under discussion at the French Parliament (the “Loi Sapin II”) to introduce a binding Say on Pay in the French Commercial Code. This bill was highly debated and, at the date hereof, the French Assemblée Nationale and Sénat have taken different positions on this topic.

In the context of this reform, it is essential that French legislators bear in mind that the board has always been and shall remain the competent corporate body to fix the compensation granted to the company’s officers. In particular, the board is the sole corporate body which can set the applicable performance criteria for the annual and long-term variable remuneration of the company’s officers and assess whether or not these criteria have been met. In our view, the best way to achieve a well-balanced system would be to implement a Say on Pay inspired by the U.K. model, with (i) a binding shareholder vote every three or four years on the company’s compensation policy, and (ii) a nonbinding shareholder vote every year on the compensation granted to the company’s officers for the previous fiscal year, without any effect provided that such compensation complies with the management compensation policy approved by the shareholders.

Germany

Shareholders have always occupied a more complicated role in Germany, where a two-tier board structure gives labour unions and other interest groups a role, while limiting direct contact with executives.

In recent years, however, activists have descended on Germany. Knight Vinke, a Monaco-based hedge fund that specialises in large cap companies, has written a white paper on how E.On should be reshaped, while Cevian Capital has stakes in Bilfinger and ThyssenKrupp, where it is practising its traditional long-term, operational style of activism. Sports retailer Adidas has been forced to deny suggestions that Southeastern Asset Management was behind a decision to sell its golf division.

Events at Volkswagen since the emissions scandal highlight both the opportunities and the challenges for activism in Germany. London-based hedge fund The Children’s Investment Fund (“TCI”), wrote a scathing public letter in May, attacking executive compensation and deals with local state officials and unions that had damaged productivity levels.

Other investors sought to use Volkswagen’s annual meeting to send a message by attempting to deny management board members discharge from liability for their decisions and to halt dividend payments. Despite a number of investors speaking at the meeting and criticism from proxy voting advisers, the management resolutions were carried comfortably, reflecting the concentrated ownership of the Porsche and Piëch families.

A proxy contest at drugmaker Stada Arzneimittel may yet present activists with a path to influencing German companies, however. Investors defied management to elect a director selected by Active Ownership Capital (“AOC”), voted down Chairman Martin Abend and rejected the company’s remuneration plan. Other investors have openly called for the company to be sold, although AOC denied it would push for this.

The proxy contest at Stada Arzneimittel is a rare beast in a country that generally encourages activists to work more with management than directors to get things done. Even The Children’s Investment Fund Management, which has a fearsome reputation, is relying on its bully pulpit as a shareholder in Volkswagen to get things done, rather than initiating a formal contest. Activists have appointed supervisory board members in the past, however. Cevian Capital, a big player in the region, is currently involved at several construction sector companies.

A wave of merger arbitrage by activists such as Kerrisdale Capital and Elliott Management as well the traditional activism of Cevian Capital made 2013 a banner year for activism in Germany. Cevian are showing the country more attention than ever, with 2016 on course to finish strongly.

* as of 30th June 2016. Projected full-year figures shown in dotted box.

Growing interest in activism in Germany has seen a wider range of market caps affected by activism since our last report. Both mid cap and large cap targets have increased in prominence, thanks to well-resourced activists showing interest in recent years.

New players rising

Shareholder activism in Germany continues to receive attention from the public, particularly with new domestic and short selling activists that understand how to utilise statutory legal instruments to implement their strategies entering the stage.

Elliott Management, a typical activist investor in special situations, continued to fiercely enforce its claim for an increase of the consideration for its 14.4% stake in Kabel Deutschland as part of the tender offer by Vodafone Group. In 2013, Elliott requested a special audit to review the offer of €84.53 per share. Since Vodafone vetoed a further special audit at the 2015 annual meeting, Elliott filed a court action requesting a further special audit alleging that €188 would have been fair; it seized upon its right pursuant to Sec. 145 German Stock Corporation Act (“AktG”). The court ruled in favour of Elliott, while the verdict of the further audit is outstanding.

Turning to “strategic” activists, with Active Ownership Capital (“AOC”) a new German player has entered the stage. In April 2016, AOC purchased a 5.1% position in Stada Arzneimittel and requested the replacement of initially five, later three, of the nine members of Stada’s supervisory board. Originally, Stada accepted these nominations but then changed its mind, eventually adjourning its annual meeting by nearly three months. Meanwhile AOC established a shareholders’ forum (Sec. 127a AktG) asking major shareholders to nominate candidates for election, eventually picking four to take into the proxy contest. Additionally, AOC called for the election of a new auditor; then it proposed the replacement of management board members even though the management board is appointed by the supervisory board whose members are independent from shareholders. AOC has been supported by Guy Wyser-Pratte and German Shareholder Value Management, drawing scrutiny by the German supervisory authority BaFin. It remains unclear whether AOC is seeking a longterm partnership or publicity to raise Stada’s market value, possibly with the goal of a sale; respective rumours of a partial or complete sale have evolved.

Besides the shareholders’ forum and direct communication with management, AOC essentially may use the following legal instruments: request that discharge of management not be granted on an individual basis (Sec. 120 para. 1 sent. 2 AktG), individual election of supervisory board members (Sec. 5.4.3 German Corporate Governance Code) and voting on its own director nominees prior to candidates proposed by management, thus enhancing their chances for election (Sec. 137 AktG).

The influence of activists is further proven by Cevian Capital’s investment in Bilfinger. For years Cevian has closely followed Bilfinger’s management and presumably “installed” Eckhard Cordes as chairman of the supervisory board, prompting various changes to the management board.

Aside from some other campaigns, a new kind of activists has emerged—those selling shares short and spreading news adversely affecting the share price. The lawfulness of this may be doubted. Examples include Muddy Waters (at Ströer) and Zatarra (Wirecard).

This illustrates the continuing increase in shareholder activism in Germany and that German law provides requisite instruments for it.

Italy

Shareholder representation on company boards is the rule and not the exception in Italy, with large investors dividing board seats amongst themselves and majority shareholders choosing managers. As of 2014, 83% of listed companies had a controlling shareholder, or a coalition of shareholders in control. However, the long-term trend is that the weight of the owners is slowly decreasing, and the presence of foreign institutional investors rising.

Moreover, the country’s prolonged economic crisis and new laws have weakened families and institutions that have controlled Italy’s largest companies for decades. Changes include the conversion of the largest co-operative banks into limited companies, a ban on director overboarding within competing entities in the financial sector, and limits on the grip of foundations on the country’s banks.

Railway signalling group Ansaldo STS has recently faced one of the most outspoken activist campaigns ever seen in the country, with Elliott Management and Amber Capital fighting for an increase in the price of a tender offer by Japan’s Hitachi—which recently acquired the Italian company’s controlling stake. Elliott also exploited Italy’s proxy access rules to elect three directors to the board of Ansaldo STS.

London-based Amber, which has an office in Milan, is also fighting a battle at dairy multinational Parmalat, where it has a board seat and accuses the controlling shareholder of improper related-party transactions.

In the 2016 proxy season, the Investment Managers’ Committee, an association assisting investment firms in nominating independent directors, submitted slates at 34 companies—up from 14 in 2013–and elected close to 60 board members, largely thanks to laws granting seats to minority shareholders.

Elliott Management has launched one of the most outspoken activist campaigns ever seen in Italy, electing three directors at Ansaldo STS and filing a lawsuit to gain complete control of the board. Amber Capital is engaging with several companies, and a battle with Parmalat’s largest shareholder that started in 2012 is still ongoing. In 2015, Vincent Bolloré’s Vivendi won three seats on the board of Telecom Italia.

Activism in Italy has been rising steadily since the eurozone crisis, and 2016 is the busiest year on record as regulatory reform increases the scope for investors to apply pressure.

* as of 30th June 2016. Projected full-year figures shown in dotted box.

Activism in Italy is dominated by companies with a market capitalisation of less than 1.8 billion euros, although high-profile examples of large companies being targeted can be found.

Switzerland

Activism in Switzerland continues to play a role in several aspects of corporate life. Despite campaigns at the likes of Transocean, Xstrata and UBS, the country has previously been thought of as unfavourable to activism because, as in Germany, many companies have dual board structures. However, that failed to stop investors recently demanding changes to boards at Holcim, fashion retailer Charles Vögele and listed hedge fund Altin.

M&A activity including some of the largest Swiss companies, such as Syngenta and LafargeHolcim, has forced management teams to engage more meaningfully with shareholders, although investors have been less successful in wringing out meaningful concessions than in 2012, when a shareholder vote on golden parachutes for Xstrata executives forced the resignation of Chairman John Bond.

At Sika, a specialty chemicals company, Bill Gates’ family office Cascade Investment has opposed a takeover offer from Cie de Saint-Gobain, lobbying the takeover panel to force the bidder to tender for minority shareholders’ stakes. At the time of writing, Swiss courts were being asked to decide whether Sika could limit the majority voting rights of its founding family, which sold its 16% stake to the bidder.

A campaign at Altin highlights the lengths activists have to go to in Switzerland. In February, Alpine Select requisitioned a shareholder meeting to vote on the appointment of three new directors and a special dividend. When Alpine won just one seat on the board, its nominee resigned, and it went on to build a majority stake before negotiating an agreement whereby the company nominated three new directors, paid a hefty dividend and agreed to delist from the London Stock Exchange. Altin CEO Tony Morrongiello also announced his resignation in favour of Alpine’s Claudia Habermacher at the June annual meeting.

The restricted power of dual-class Swiss boards often limits investors to complaining about decisions from outside the boardroom—as with the appointment of Adecco’s new CEO—or legal action—as Bill Gates’ family office Cascade Investment is pursuing at Sika. Mergers have also catalysed activism, with Syngenta and Holcim targeted. As ever, Cevian Capital is present through its stake in ABB, while Swiss activist Telios may be one to watch in the future.

After an exceptionally busy 2015, this year has a lot to live up to. However, activists have started strongly, targeting more companies than in any year before 2015.

* as of 30th June 2016. Projected full-year figures shown in dotted box.

The make up of activist targets has changed only slightly in recent years. Many Swiss targets of activists being international by nature and often involved in crossborder mergers, the predominance of large cap targets is perhaps not surprising.

Malaise au conseil | Les effets pervers de l’obligation de divulgation des rémunérations de la haute direction (en rappel)

Aujourd’hui, je cède la parole à Mme Nicolle Forget*, certainement l’une des administratrices de sociétés les plus chevronnées au Québec (sinon au Canada), qui nous présente sa vision de la gouvernance « réglementée » ainsi que celle du rôle des administrateurs dans ce processus.

L’allocution qui suit a été prononcée dans le cadre du Colloque sur la gouvernance organisée par la Chaire de recherche en gouvernance de sociétés le 6 juin 2014. Je pensais tout d’abord faire un résumé de son texte, mais, après une lecture attentive, j’en ai conclu que celui-ci exposait une problématique de fond et constituait une prise de position fondamentale en gouvernance. Il me semblait essentiel de vous faire partager son article au complet.

Nous avons souvent abordé les conséquences non anticipées de la réglementation, principalement celles découlant des exigences de divulgation en matière de rémunération. Cependant, dans son allocution, l’auteure apporte un éclairage nouveau, inédit et audacieux sur l’exercice de la gouvernance dans les sociétés publiques.

Elle présente une solide argumentation et expose clairement certains malaises vécus par les administrateurs eu égard à la lourdeur des mécanismes réglementaires de gouvernance. Les questionnements présentés en conclusion de l’article sont, en grande partie, fondés sur sa longue expérience comme membre de nombreux conseils d’administration.

Comment réagissez-vous aux constats que fait Mme Forget ? Les autorités réglementaires vont-elles trop loin dans la prescription des obligations de divulgation ? Pouvons-nous éviter les effets pervers de certaines dispositions sans pour autant nuire au processus de divulgation d’informations importantes pour les actionnaires et les parties prenantes.

Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus. Je vous souhaite une bonne lecture.

MALAISE AU CONSEIL | Les effets pervers de l’obligation de divulgation en matière de rémunération

par

Nicolle Forget*

Merci aux organisateurs de ce colloque de me donner l’occasion de partager avec vous quelques constatations et interrogations qui m’habitent depuis quatre ou cinq ans concernant diverses obligations imposées aux entreprises à capital ouvert (inscrites en Bourse). Je souligne d’entrée de jeu que la présentation qui suit n’engage que moi.

Depuis l’avènement de quelques grands scandales financiers, ici et ailleurs, on en a mis beaucoup sur le dos des administrateurs de sociétés. On voudrait qu’un administrateur soit un expert en semblable matière. Il ne l’est pas. Il arrive avec son bagage, c’est pourquoi on l’a choisi. On lui prépare un programme de formation pour lui permettre de comprendre l’entreprise au conseil de laquelle il a accepté de siéger, mais il n’en saura jamais autant que la somme des savoirs de l’entreprise. C’est utopique de s’attendre au contraire. Même un administrateur qui ne ferait que cela, siéger au conseil de cette entreprise, ne le pourrait pas.

nicolle-forget

Des questions reviennent constamment dans l’actualité : où étaient les administrateurs ? N’ont-ils rien vu venir ou rien vu tout court? Ont-ils rempli leur devoir fiduciaire? Tout juste si on ne conclut pas qu’ils sont tous des incompétents. Les administrateurs étaient là. Ils savaient ce que l’on a bien voulu leur faire savoir. (ex. Saccage de la Baie-James. Les administrateurs de la SEBJ, convoqués en Commission parlementaire à Québec, au printemps 1983, ont appris, par un avocat venu y témoigner, l’existence d’un avis juridique qu’il avait préparé à la demande de la direction. La SEBJ poursuivait alors les responsables du saccage et un très long procès était sur le point de commencer. Avoir eu connaissance de son contenu, au moment où il a été livré au PDG, aurait eu un impact sur nos décisions. J’étais alors membre du conseil d’administration).

Posons tout de suite que la meilleure gouvernance qui soit n’empêchera jamais des dirigeants qui veulent cacher au conseil certains actes d’y parvenir — surtout si ces actes sont frauduleux. Même avec de belles politiques et de beaux codes d’éthique, plusieurs directions d’entreprise trouvent encore qu’un conseil d’administration n’est rien d’autre qu’un mal nécessaire. Les administrateurs sont parfois perçus comme s’ingérant dans les affaires de la direction ou dans les décisions qu’elle prend. Aussi, ces dirigeants ont-ils tendance à placer les conseils devant des faits accomplis ou des dossiers tellement bien ficelés qu’il est difficile d’y trouver une fissure par laquelle entrevoir une faille dans l’argumentation au soutien de la décision à prendre. Pourtant, et nous le verrons plus loin, en vertu de la loi, le conseil « exerce tous les pouvoirs nécessaires pour gérer les activités et les affaires internes de la société ou en surveiller l’exécution ».

Les conseils d’administration, comme les entreprises et leurs dirigeants, sont soumis à quantité de législations, réglementations, annexes à celles-ci, avis, lignes directrices et autres exigences émanant d’autorités multiples — et davantage les entreprises œuvrent dans un secteur d’activités qui dépasse les frontières d’une province ou d’un pays. Et, selon ce que l’on entend, il faudrait que l’administrateur ait toujours tout vu, tout su…

Malaise !

En 2007, Yvan Allaire écrivait que « … la gouvernance par les conseils d’administration est devenue pointilleuse et moins complaisante, mais également plus tatillonne, coûteuse et litigieuse ; les dirigeants se plaignent de la bureaucratisation de leur entreprise, du temps consacré pour satisfaire aux nouvelles exigences » 1. Denis Desautels, lui, signalait que « Certains prétendent que le souci de la conformité aux lois et aux règlements l’emporte sur les discussions stratégiques et sur la création de valeur. Et d’autres, que l’adoption ou l’endossement des nouvelles normes n’est pas toujours sincère et, qu’au fond, la culture de l’entreprise n’a pas réellement changé » 2.

Pour mémoire, voyons quelques obligations (de base) d’un administrateur de sociétés.

Au Québec, la Loi sur les sociétés par actions (L.r.Q., c. S-31.1) prévoit que les affaires de la société sont administrées par un conseil d’administration qui « exerce tous les pouvoirs nécessaires pour gérer les activités et les affaires internes de la société ou en surveiller l’exécution » (art. 112) et que, « Sauf dans la mesure prévue par la loi, l’exercice de ces pouvoirs ne nécessite pas l’approbation des actionnaires et ceux-ci peuvent être délégués à un administrateur, à un dirigeant ou à un ou plusieurs comités du conseil. »

De façon générale, les administrateurs de sociétés sont soumis aux obligations auxquelles est assujetti tout administrateur d’une personne morale en vertu du Code civil. « En conséquence, les administrateurs sont notamment tenus envers la société, dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions, d’agir avec prudence et diligence de même qu’avec honnêteté et loyauté dans son intérêt » (art. 119). L’intérêt de la société, pas l’intérêt de l’actionnaire. La loi fédérale présente des concepts semblables. (La Cour Suprême du Canada a d’ailleurs rappelé dans l’affaire BCE qu’il n’existe pas au Canada de principe selon lequel les intérêts d’une partie — les actionnaires, par exemple — doivent avoir priorité sur ceux des autres parties.)

Si la société fait appel publiquement à l’épargne, elle devient un émetteur assujetti. Alors s’ajoutent les règles de la Bourse concernant les exigences d’inscription initiale ainsi que celles concernant le maintien de l’inscription. S’ajoutent aussi les obligations édictées dans la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières (L.R.Q., c. V-1.1), de même que les règlements qui en découlent, et dont l’Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) est chargée de l’application. L’émetteur assujetti est tenu aux obligations d’information continue. Si vous êtes un administrateur ou un haut dirigeant d’un tel émetteur ou même d’une filiale d’un tel émetteur, vous êtes un initié avec des obligations particulières.

L’article 73 de cette Loi stipule que tel émetteur « … fournit, conformément aux conditions et modalités déterminées par règlement, l’information périodique au sujet de son activité et de ses affaires internes, dont ses pratiques en matière de gouvernance, l’information occasionnelle au sujet d’un changement important et toute autre information prévue par règlement. ». « L’émetteur assujetti doit organiser ses affaires conformément aux règles établies par règlement en matière de gouvernance ». (art.73.1)

La mission de l’Autorité, (entendre ici AMF) telle qu’énoncée à l’article 276.1 de la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières se décline comme suit :

Favoriser le bon fonctionnement du marché des valeurs mobilières ;
Assurer la protection des épargnants contre les pratiques déloyales, abusives et frauduleuses ;
Régir l’information des porteurs de valeurs mobilières et du public sur les personnes qui font publiquement appel à l’épargne et sur les valeurs émises par celles-ci ;
Encadrer l’activité des professionnels des valeurs mobilières et des organismes chargés d’assurer le fonctionnement d’un marché des valeurs mobilières.

Dans sa loi constituante, l’Autorité a une mission plus élaborée qui reprend sensiblement les mêmes thèmes, mais en appuyant davantage sur la protection des consommateurs de produits et utilisateurs de services financiers. (art.4, L.R.Q., c. A-33.2)

Aux termes de la législation en vigueur, « L’Autorité exerce la discrétion qui lui est conférée en fonction de l’intérêt public » (art.316, L.R.Q., c. V-1.1) et un règlement pris en vertu de la présente loi confère un pouvoir discrétionnaire à l’Autorité » (art.334). En outre, toujours selon cette Loi, « Les instructions générales sont réputées constituer des règlements dans la mesure où elles portent sur un sujet pour lequel la loi nouvelle prévoit une habilitation réglementaire et qu’elles sont compatibles avec cette loi et les règlements pris pour son application. »

Je vous fais grâce du Règlement sur les valeurs mobilières (Décret 660-83 ; 115 G.O.2, 1511) ; quant à l’Annexe (51-102A5), portant sur la Circulaire de sollicitation de procuration par la direction, et celle (51-102A6) portant spécifiquement sur la Déclaration de la rémunération de la haute direction, j’y reviendrai plus loin.

Ceci pour une société qui ne fait affaire qu’au Québec, et à l’exclusion de toutes les autres législations et les nombreux règlements portant sur un secteur d’activité en particulier. Pensons juste aux activités qui peuvent affecter l’environnement, même de loin. Alors, si une société fait affaire ailleurs au Canada et aux É.-U. ou sur plusieurs continents — ajoutez des obligations, des modes différents de divulgation de l’information — et cela peut vous donner une petite idée de « l’industrie » qu’est devenue la gouvernance d’entreprise avec l’obligation de livrer l’information en continu et sous une forme de plus en plus détaillée. Et les administrateurs devraient tout savoir, avoir tout vu…

Les très nombreuses informations que nous publions rencontrent-elles l’objectif à l’origine de ces exigences ? Carol Liao soutient que « les autorités réglementaires sont par définition orientées vers l’actionnaire ce qui aurait mené à une augmentation des droits de ces derniers, bien au-delà de ce que les lois canadiennes (sur les sociétés) envisageaient. » On a vu plus haut que la Loi sur les sociétés par actions édicte que « les administrateurs sont notamment tenus envers la société dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions, d’agir avec prudence et diligence de même qu’avec honnêteté et loyauté dans son intérêt ». Se pourrait-il que « ce qui est dans l’intérêt supérieur des actionnaires ne coïncide pas avec une meilleure gouvernance ? (doesn’t align with better governance – that’s where the practice falls down »3.)

J’aime à croire que l’origine de l’obligation qui est faite aux entreprises de dire qui elles sont, ce qu’elles font, comment elles le font, et avec qui elles le font, est la protection du petit investisseur — vous et moi qui plaçons nos économies en prévision de nos vieux jours — comme disaient les anciens.

À moins d’y être obligé par son travail, qui comprend le contenu des circulaires de sollicitation de procuration par la direction, émises à l’intention des actionnaires ? Les Notices annuelles ? D’abord, qui les lit? Chaque fois que l’occasion m’en est donnée, je pose la question – et partout le même commentaire : si je n’avais pas les lire je ne les lirais pas. La quantité de papier rebute en partant ; la complexité des informations à publier en la forme prescrite est difficile à comprendre pour un non-expert, alors imaginez pour un petit investisseur. Si même il s’aventure à lire le document.

Donc, si tant est que les circulaires et les notices ne soient pratiquement lues que par ceux qui n’ont pas le choix de le faire, il serait peut-être temps de se demander à quoi, ou plutôt, à qui elles servent ? Et à quels coûts pour l’entreprise. A-t-on une idée de combien d’experts s’affairent avec le personnel de l’entreprise à préparer ces documents sans compter les réunions des comités d’Audit, de Ressources humaines, de Gouvernance et du conseil qui se pencheront sur diverses versions des mêmes documents ?

Encore une fois, pour quoi ? Pour qui ?

Pourquoi pas aux activistes de toutes origines ?

La dernière crise financière (2008/2009) semble avoir été l’accélérateur de l’activisme de groupes, autour des actionnaires, de même que l’arrivée d’experts de toutes sortes en gouvernance d’entreprise. Une industrie venait de naître! Le Rapport sur la gouvernance 2013, de Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, s.e. n.c. r. l., soutient qu’il s’agit d’une tendance alimentée surtout « par le nombre accru d’occasions d’activisme découlant de certaines tendances actuelles de la législation et des pratiques à vouloir que plus de questions soient soumises à l’approbation des actionnaires » 4.

Mais, l’a-t-on oublié ? Les administrateurs ont un devoir de fiduciaire envers la société, pas juste envers les actionnaires. Ils doivent assurer la pérennité de l’entreprise et pas juste afficher un rendement à court terme qui entraîne des effets pervers sur la gestion des ressources humaines et ne tient pas suffisamment compte d’une saine gestion des risques. Question : est-ce que la mesure de l’efficacité consiste en une reddition de compte trimestrielle ? Est-ce que cette reddition de compte, toute formatée, n’est pas en train de remplacer la responsabilité et l’engagement personnel des hauts dirigeants ? La pression mise sur les conseils d’administration, par certains activistes (d’ailleurs pas toujours actionnaires de l’entreprise !), et de leurs conseillers divers, pour discuter avec le président du conseil et le président du comité de ressources humaines est perçue comme une tentative de la part de ces activistes d’imposer leur programme — au détriment des autres actionnaires et de l’intérêt même de l’émetteur. Et comme certains fournisseurs de ces activistes (agences de conseils en vote) produisent des analyses pour leur clientèle en vue d’une recommandation de vote lors d’une assemblée annuelle — cette démarche peut être interprétée comme une pression à la limite de l’intimidation.

Venons-en aux obligations de divulgation portant sur la rémunération des membres de la haute direction visés.

Les prêteurs, les actionnaires, ont le droit de connaître — à terme — les obligations de l’entreprise, y compris celles envers ses hauts dirigeants. Remarquez, ils ont aussi le droit de savoir s’il y a exagération ou abus. Mais, ont-ils besoin, entre autres, de connaître dans le détail les objectifs personnels fixés à Monsieur X ou à Madame Y?; pour quel % cela compte-t-il dans la rémunération incitative à court terme?; à quel % tels objectifs ont-ils été rencontrés?; pourquoi l’ont-ils été à ce %?. Peut-on sérieusement croire qu’une entreprise va publier que telle ou telle personne n’est pas à la hauteur, 12 à 15 mois après les faits?. Ou bien cette personne a rencontré les objectifs fixés de façon satisfaisante ou bien elle n’est plus là. Denis Desautels avance, dans le texte cité plus haut, qu’il « n’est pas sage d’appuyer les régimes de rémunération sur des formules trop quantitatives ou mathématiques et d’allouer une trop grande portion de la rémunération globale à la partie variable ou à risque de la rémunération ». Pourtant, les pressions ne cessent d’augmenter pour que cela soit le cas (Pay for Performance) et que ce soit basé sur des mesures objectives et connues comme le cours de l’action ou le résultat par action… le tout par rapport au groupe de référence. Performance devient le nouveau leitmotiv. S’est-on jamais demandé ce que cette divulgation pouvait avoir comme effet d’« emballement » sur la rémunération des hauts dirigeants? Et les politiques de rémunération doivent continuellement s’ajuster.

Le Règlement 51-102, à son Annexe A6 (Déclaration de la rémunération de la haute direction) prescrit non seulement le contenu, mais aussi la forme que doit prendre cette déclaration :

L’ensemble de la rémunération payée, payable, attribuée, octroyée, donnée ou fournie de quelque autre façon, directement ou indirectement, par la société ou une de ses filiales à chaque membre de la haute direction visé et chaque administrateur, à quelque titre que ce soit, notamment l’ensemble de la rémunération en vertu d’un plan ou non, les paiements directs ou indirects, la rétribution, les attributions d’ordre financier ou monétaire, les récompenses, les avantages, les cadeaux ou avantages indirects qui lui sont payés, payables, attribués, octroyés, donnés ou fournis de quelque autre façon pour les services rendus et à rendre, directement ou indirectement, à la société ou à une de ses filiales. (art. 1.3 par, 1 a).

L’émetteur assujetti doit, en outre, produire une analyse de la rémunération, laquelle doit :

1) Décrire et expliquer tous les éléments significatifs composant la rémunération attribuée, payée, payable aux membres de la haute direction visés, ou gagnée par ceux-ci, au cours du dernier exercice, notamment les suivants :

a) les objectifs de tout programme de rémunération ou de toute stratégie en la matière ;
b) ce que le programme de rémunération vise à récompenser ;
c) chaque élément de la rémunération ;
d) les motifs de paiement de chaque élément ;
e) la façon dont le montant de chaque élément est fixé, en indiquant la formule, le cas échéant ;
f) la façon dont chaque élément de la rémunération et les décisions de la société sur chacun cadrent avec les objectifs généraux en matière de rémunération et leur incidence sur les décisions concernant les autres éléments.

2) Le cas échéant, expliquer les actions posées, les politiques établies ou les décisions prises après la clôture du dernier exercice qui pourraient influencer la compréhension qu’aurait une personne raisonnable de la rémunération versée à un membre de la haute direction visé au cours du dernier exercice.

3) Le cas échéant, indiquer clairement la référence d’étalonnage établie et expliquer les éléments qui la composent, notamment les sociétés incluses dans le groupe de référence et les critères de sélection.

4) Le cas échéant, indiquer les objectifs de performance ou les conditions similaires qui sont fondés sur des mesures objectives et connues, comme le cours de l’action de la société ou le résultat par action. Il est possible de décrire les objectifs de performance ou les conditions similaires qui sont subjectifs sans indiquer de mesure précise.

Si les objectifs de performance ou les conditions similaires publiés ne sont pas des mesures financières conformes aux PCGR, en expliquer la méthode de calcul à partir des états financiers de la société.

Et le tout dans un langage clair, concis et « présenté de façon à permettre à une personne raisonnable, faisant des efforts raisonnables de comprendre (…)

a) la façon dont sont prises les décisions concernant la rémunération des membres de la haute direction visés et des administrateurs ;
b) le lien précis entre la rémunération des membres de la haute direction visés et des administrateurs et la gestion et la gouvernance de la société (par. 10). »

L’Instruction générale relative au règlement 51-102 sur les obligations d’information continue définit, en son article 1.5, ce qu’il faut entendre par langage simple. C’est en quatorze points ; je vous en fais grâce. Je rappelle ici qu’une instruction générale est réputée constituer un règlement.

Trop, c’est comme pas assez. C’est aussi ce que pourrait se dire la personne raisonnable après avoir fait des efforts raisonnables pour comprendre tout cela. Cette personne pour laquelle l’entreprise publie toutes les informations réclamées par le législateur/autorité réglementaire poussé par l’industrie de la gouvernance qui, elle, bénéficie de la complexification des règles.

L’émetteur est placé devant ces obligations auxquelles il veut bien se conformer, mais pas au point de livrer des éléments importants de ses stratégies de développement au premier lecteur venu. Ce qui pourrait même être contre l’intérêt des actionnaires, et finalement ne bénéficier qu’à la concurrence. Ce qui fait que l’on en est rendu à se demander comment éviter de divulguer « les secrets de familles », si je puis dire, sans indisposer les autorités réglementaires — surtout si on doit aller au marché dans les mois qui suivent.

Malaise !

Si mon souvenir est bon, les pressions sont venues de groupes divers (investisseurs institutionnels, gestionnaires de fonds et autres) qui jugeaient les rémunérations des hauts dirigeants extravagantes et non méritées. Pour eux, les administrateurs étaient responsables de cet état de fait. Alors, on a légiféré, réglementé, permis le Say on Pay et diverses propositions d’actionnaires. La rémunération a-t-elle baissé ? Non. Les parachutes ont-ils disparu? Non. Chacun se compare à l’autre et ne voit pas pourquoi il ne serait pas rémunéré comme son vis-à-vis de l’entreprise Z. Et les PDG de se négocier un contrat blindé — pourquoi pas? Ils sont assis sur un siège éjectable.

Ne pourrait-on pas se demander maintenant si partie ou toutes ces exigences ne produisent pas davantage d’effets pervers que de bénéfices ? (Dans le plan d’affaires 2013-2016 des ACVM. Les deux dernières priorités sont : réglementation des marchés ; et efficacité des mesures d’application de la loi).

Ne pourrait-on pas aussi se demander si exiger une durée minimale de détention de l’actionnariat pour obtenir le droit de vote à une assemblée générale ne serait pas souhaitable ?

Si publier les résultats deux fois l’an, au lieu de quatre, ne donnerait pas un peu d’oxygène aux entreprises — un début de délivrance de la tyrannie du rendement à court terme ? Et, quant à y être, pourquoi continuer de publier l’information telle qu’exigée, si elle n’est pas lue ?

Et puis, à quoi servent les administrateurs si les actionnaires peuvent s’immiscer dans la gestion d’une entreprise et imposer leurs volontés en tout temps ?

Et à quel actionnaire permettre quoi ? Un Hedge Fund qui achète et vend des millions d’actions par minute ? Un fond mutuel qui garde des actions quelques années ? Un retraité qui conserve ses actions depuis 20 ans ?

D’ici à ce que l’on ait réfléchi à tout cela, ne peut-on pas marquer le pas ?

1. Allaire, Yvan, Pourquoi cette vague de privatisation d’entreprises cotées en Bourse, La Presse, mars 2007.
2. Desautels, Denis, OC, FCA, Les défis les plus difficiles des administrateurs de sociétés, Collège des administrateurs de sociétés, Conférence annuelle, 11 mars 2009.
3. Carol Liao, A Canadian Model of Corporate Governance, Where do shareholders really stand? Director Journal, January/February 2014, p. 37
4. p. 55.

*Nicolle Forget siège au conseil d’administration du Groupe Jean Coutu (PJC) Inc., de Valener Inc. et de ses filiales et du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés. Elle a, entre autres, fait partie d’un comité d’éthique de la recherche et des nouvelles technologies et de comités d’éthique clinique, de même que du Groupe de travail sur l’éthique, la probité et l’intégrité des administrateurs publics et a présidé le Groupe de travail sur les difficultés d’accès au financement pour les femmes entrepreneuses.

Madame Forget a été chargée de cours à l’École des Hautes Études commerciales et elle est l’auteure de cas en gestion de même que de quelques ouvrages biographiques. Madame Forget a d’abord fait du journalisme à Joliette avant de se consacrer à la gestion d’organismes de recherche et de formation durant les années 1970. Elle a aussi été membre (juge administratif) de tribunaux administratif et quasi judiciaire durant les années 1980 et 1990.

Madame Forget est diplômée de l’UQÀM (brevet d’enseignement spécialisé en administration), des HEC (baccalauréat en sciences commerciales) et de l’Université de Montréal (licence en droit et DESS en bioéthique). Elle fût membre du Barreau du Québec jusqu’en 2011.

Madame Forget a siégé à de nombreux conseils d’administration dont : Fédération des femmes du Québec, Conseil économique du Canada, SEBJ, Hydro-Québec, Hydro-Québec International, Gaz Métro Inc., Agence québécoise de valorisation industrielle de la recherche, Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec, Université de Montréal, École polytechnique, Innotermodal. Elle a, de plus, présidé les conseils de Accesum Inc., Nouveler Inc., Accès 51, Ballet Eddy Toussaint, Festival d’été de Lanaudière et Association des consommateurs du Québec.

Points saillants eu égard aux rémunérations des hauts dirigeants en 2016 | The Conference Board

Quels ont été les développements eu égard aux rémunérations de la haute direction des sociétés publiques américaines en 2016 ?

C’est le sujet de l’article publié par Matteo Tonello, directeur exécutif du Conference Board.

Chaque année, l’organisation publie un état de la situation de la rémunération des grands patrons des sociétés américaines.

L’étude, rendue publique récemment, vient de paraître dans le Harvard Law School Forum ; on y présente les changements majeurs dans les politiques de rémunération et l’on y dresse un portrait complet des pratiques de rémunération supervisées par les conseils d’administration.

C’est un compte rendu incontournable pour tous les membres de comités des ressources humaines.

Bonne lecture !

CEO and Executive Compensation Practices: 2016 Edition

The report has been designed to reflect the changing landscape of executive compensation and its disclosure. In addition to benchmarks on individual elements of compensation packages and the evolving features of short-term and long-term incentive plans (STIs and LTIs), the report provides details on shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation (say-on-pay) and outlines the major practices on board oversight of compensation design.

Compensation data is examined and segmented by business industry and company size (measured in terms of annual revenue). For the purpose of the industry analysis, the report aggregates companies within 10 industry groups, using the applicable Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) codes. In addition, to highlight differences between small and large companies, findings in the Russell 3000 Index are compared with those from the S&P 500 Index. The S&P 500, or subset of the S&P 500, is also used to further investigate certain compensation practices, such as changes in pension value, perquisites, and incentive plans. Figures and illustrations used throughout the report refer to the Russell 3000 analysis unless otherwise specified.

Key Findings from the study

Several highest paid CEOs have made the top-25 list for years; shareholder return is rarely the performance goal driving their compensation.

In the last few years, companies have been responding to public scrutiny over pay-for-performance and made significant adjustments to their compensation policies—curbing base salaries and annual bonuses, introducing retention requirements on equity awards, and shifting from single metric to blended-metric incentive plans. And yet The Conference Board found that pay and performance alignment, at least where performance is measured in terms of total shareholder return (TSR), continues to elude some industries’ chief executives; their top-level compensation is due to performance metrics other than TSR. For example, at asset management public company GAMCO, Mario Gabelli receives fees related to the total assets that his investment company manages, not only the returns generated by those invested assets. At media companies Viacom and CBS, the performance targets of choice are operating income and free cash flow, both for annual and long-term incentives; moreover, the compensation required to retain a CEO is inevitably distorted by the generous compensation offered by those companies to the artists and other media talent needed to appeal to wide audiences. Therefore, at least for these individuals, an analysis of TSR performance is only going to tell some of the story.

CEOs of smaller companies benefited from the highest total pay growth in 2015, but the compensation gap between them and their colleagues in the S&P 500 remains wide.

Excluding the effects of pensions, the increase in median total compensation for CEOs in the S&P 500 was 2.9 percent, contributing to a six-year rise (from 2010) of 22.25 percent. The equivalent figures for the Russell 3000 were 4.2 percent and 54.7 percent respectively. In fact, in the smallest company bracket by revenue, under US$100 million, the increase in median total pay was 37 percent, just between 2014 and 2015 levels. In contrast, the CEOs of the largest companies (US$50 billion and over) received a rise in median pay of 10.8 percent, while smaller organizations saw their median compensation shrink even when excluding the effects of pensions.

Smaller increases in total CEO compensation documented for some industries (including energy, utilities, and telecommunication services) reflect the lackluster performance caused by the slump in commodity prices, new regulatory restraints, and market saturation.

According to the business sector analysis, and again excluding the effect of pension change, CEOs in telecommunications, utilities, industrials, and energy saw median total compensation fall. For energy firm CEOS, the decrease was as large as 17.7 percent. In contrast, CEOs of companies in the consumer discretionary (such as entertainment and travel), consumer staples, and health care sectors all experienced double digit increases, with the highest going to consumer staples CEOs at 28 percent. On the other hand, no industry reported a negative six-year change, with health care CEOs experiencing median growth in total compensation between 2010 and 2015 of 94 percent, from US$1,817,000 to US$3,525,000.

As companies continue to strive to achieve pay-for-performance, a rise in the value of stock awards drives the bulk of total CEO compensation increases.

Stock awards have taken up the slack of virtually every other component of pay. S&P 500 CEOs receive 47 percent of their total pay in the form of stock awards, up from a third in 2010, while in the Russell 3000 it has risen from less than a quarter of total pay to more than a third. More specifically, in 2015 the value of stock awards grew by over 23 percent at the median for CEOs in the Russell 3000, and by 13.7 percent for CEOs in the S&P 500. Over the last six years, the growth in the value of median stock awards for the Russell 3000 has been impressive at 291.4 percent (and as high as 358.3 percent for small companies with asset values between US$500 and US$999 million). In the first quarter of 2015, when decisions about most stock awards are made, awarded stocks in both the S&P 500 and the Russell 3000 were higher than at the beginning of 2014. It remains to be seen whether the volatility that these equity indices registered in 2015 will curb the rise of stock award value in 2016.

With an inflation rate of less than one percent for both 2014 and 2015, market pressure and the looming application of the new SEC pay ratio rules explain the moderate rises in CEO base salary.

Compared to 2015, base salary rose four and 4.7 percent for CEOs in the S&P 500 and the Russell 3000, respectively. Double-digit total compensation increases for CEOs of consumer staples companies were not caused by any increase in base salary, since median salary fell by two percent in that industry. The base salary of energy CEOs showed no increase at all at the median. But for most others, base salary rose by between two percent (utilities and materials) and 6.8 percent (information technology (IT)). Similar disparities can be found when companies are broken down by revenue and asset size. CEOs at the largest companies saw either no increase in median salary or, in the case of companies with annual revenue between US$25 and US$49.9 billion, a decline in median salary by 8 percent. In contrast, CEOs of companies with annual revenue of less than US$100 million reported median salary increase of 9.4 percent, compared to a 7.5 percent increase for companies with asset values of US$500 million or less.

Stock options have been losing importance as a compensation incentive in large companies, where scrutiny on share value manipulation and other unintended behavioral effects has been felt the most.

However, when smaller organizations are analyzed, the move away from stock options is not as significant as is commonly claimed. Options as a percent of total CEO pay fell from around 18 percent to 15 percent in the S&P 500. In contrast, CEOs in the Russell 3000 have been steadily receiving around 15 percent of their pay in stock options in each of the last six years, with little or no change in the percentage.

Pension value changes and the increase in non-qualified deferred compensation (NQDC) have fallen back to normal levels following the absorption of the major actuarial valuation adjustments that occurred in 2014.

In the S&P 500, for example, the amount went from less than three percent of pay in 2013 to almost eight percent in 2014, before halving to four percent in 2015. Given the lack of involvement of boards and compensation committees in such volatility, it is hardly surprising that most surveys are careful to give figures that both exclude and include this element of pay. Across industries and company size groups, the change in pension value and NQDC was negative, both between 2014 and 2015 and over the entire six-year period.

The gain in strength of the US dollar has slowed the operational performance of many multinational companies, causing a sharp year-on-year decrease in the median annual bonuses granted to CEOs in both the Russell 3000 and the S&P 500.

In fact, in the S&P 500, median 2015 bonuses are lower than they were six years ago (when they stood close to US$2 million), though similar in level to the median bonus awarded in 2012 and 2011 (around US$1,850,000). As with other compensation elements, median bonuses for CEOs of the smallest companies reverse the general trend. Median bonuses for CEOs of companies with annual revenue of less than US$100 million increased by three percent; for companies with asset values of less than US$500 million, this increase was seven percent. In contrast, CEOs of companies with an asset value of more than US$100 billion saw median bonus value fall by almost a fifth.

In 2015, for the first time in years, the annual growth in percentage points of total NEO compensation exceeded that of CEOs—a sign that companies may be concerned about talent retention at the top in a tightening job market.

While growth of compensation for NEOs exceeded that of CEOs between 2014 and 2015, growth for NEO compensation in the long-term lags that of CEOs. NEO pay rose between 2010–2015 (32 percent and 15.8 percent in the Russell 3000 and S&P 500 respectively), but CEO pay rose more over this period (55 percent and 22 percent for each index). The latest year of slower pay growth may also reflect concerns that differentials are widening too far between CEOs and NEOs. In 2015, median total compensation for NEOs (other than the CEO) was US$1,439,000 in the Russell 3000 and US$3,563,000 in the S&P 500.

The increasing attention paid by investors and other stakeholders to sustainability and long-termism is prompting companies to add non-financial targets to their incentive plans, which seldom still rely on a single metric of performance.

The number of performance measures included in an incentive plan has steadily increased over the past five years, expanding to a series of qualitative aspects of firm performance—ranging from customer satisfaction to the implementation of safety standards and from employee turnover rates to environmental impact measures. When non-financial measures are included in the target count, more than a quarter of firms use more than six performance metrics in their STI plans. Excluding them brings that proportion down to one percent. Without non-financial measures, a third of companies have between two and three metrics for their annual plans. The volume of companies using only a single metric continues to shrink quite rapidly; in STIs, it is down from 16 percent to 14 percent from 2014 to 2015, up from almost a third of the examined 2010 sample. For LTIs, companies using a single metric dropped from 41 percent in 2010 to 19 percent in 2015.

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 2014.

In the Russell 3000, only 27 of the executive compensation plans put to a say-on-pay vote in the first half of 2016 failed to receive the support of a majority of shareholders. This compares with 52 and 51 percent of companies with failed votes during the same period in 2015 and 2014, respectively. Two companies that reported failed votes in 2016 had also missed a majority support level in 2015: Masimo Corp and Tutor Perini Corporation. (There were eight of these cases in 2015.) Tutor Perini Corporation is the only company in the Russell 3000 that has failed all six years of say-on-pay advisory votes. Nabors Industries Ltd. had four consecutive failed votes as of 2014, received 65.3 percent of for votes at its 2015 annual general meeting (AGM), and then failed the advisory vote again in 2016 (with a mere 36 percent of votes cast in favor of the compensation plan proposed by management).

La fonction d’audit interne | de plus en plus incontournable pour assurer une saine gouvernance et l’intégrité du management

Voici le résumé d’un article du Wall Street Journal (Internal Audit Chiefs Gain in Clout, Compensation), publié par Joann S. Lublin, et paru dans le journal The Australian.

Cet article porte sur l’importance accrue accordée au rôle de l’auditeur interne dans la vérification des mécanismes de contrôle interne, de la gestion des risques, notamment des risques de cyberattaques, ainsi que des processus de gouvernance et de conformité.

L’influence du département de l’audit interne prend une place quasi incontournable dans la vaste majorité des grandes sociétés comme en témoignent les statistiques à ce sujet.

Ainsi, 83 % des directions d’audit interne se rapportent au CA ou au comité d’audit du CA ; c’est un accroissement de 76 % en trois ans !

On peut certainement constater que les activités d’audit interne représentent les « yeux et les oreilles du comité d’audit ».

Également, les directeurs des services d’audit interne ont vu leur rémunération augmenter d’environ 30 % au cours des dix dernières années.

Les conseils d’administration accordent maintenant une grande importance à la sélection et à la rémunération des « Chief Audit Executive » (CAE).

Bonne lecture !

Chief audit executives gaining clout and higher pay

Top watchdogs inside many companies bark louder these days.

They are known as chief audit executives, or CAEs, and they assess the effectiveness of corporate controls, risk management and governance processes. As boards worry more about cyber attacks, regulatory compliance and personal liability, these executives are gaining clout and commanding higher pay.

CAEs are becoming more visible in part because directors are playing bigger roles in selecting, evaluating and rewarding internal audit chiefs. In North America, 83 per cent of those executives now report to their employer’s full board or audit committee, according to a report by the Institute of Internal Auditors. That’s up from 76 per cent in 2013.

Another sign of their rising influence: this year, for the first time, the proportion of audit leaders who report to their chief executive matched those overseen by the chief financial officer, the report found.

Solid support from audit committees and top company leaders often give CAEs more freedom to raise red flags, experts said. It can also bring them sizeable pay cheques.

“Boards will pay a lot more for CAEs with superior risk-management and business acumen in their company’s industry,’’ said Richard Chambers, IIA president.

Recruiters agree. “Chief audit executives hired by large companies now command total pay packages approaching $US1 million — about 30 per cent more than a decade ago,’’ said Scott Simmons, a managing director at Crist Kolder Associates, which recruited nearly 15 current CAEs.

Sarbanes-Oxley, the sweeping corporate-reform law enacted in 2002, raised boards’ expectations for heads of internal audit, according to Charles Noski, chairman of the audit committee at Microsoft, Priceline Group and Avon Products.

“Internal audit really is the eyes and ears of the audit committee,’’ he said, adding that CAEs today “are stronger executives’’.

Mr Noski makes sure that’s true of candidates who interview for the job. He said he seeks “a strong backbone”, plus effective boardroom presence and communications skills.

Conseil d’administration | Perte de contrôle ?

Cette semaine, je donne la parole à Joanne Desjardins* qui agit à titre d’auteure invitée sur mon blogue en gouvernance.

L’auteure a une solide expérience de consultation dans plusieurs grandes sociétés. Joanne est associée de Keyboard, une firme spécialisée en gouvernance et en stratégie.

Elle est aussi régulièrement invitée comme conférencière pour échanger sur la stratégie et la gouvernance.

Dans ce billet, l’auteure présente les raisons sous-jacentes à la mise en place d’un conseil d’administration (et même d’un comité consultatif) et elle décrit les quatre principaux avantages de la constitution d’un CA.

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.

Conseil d’administration | Perte de contrôle ?

par

Joanne Desjardins

Jonglez-vous avec l’idée de constituer un conseil d’administration (CA) ? Avez-vous le pied sur le frein ? Pourquoi ?

Avez-vous peur de perdre le contrôle ? Est-ce qu’un CA prendra véritablement le contrôle de votre entreprise ?

Mettons les pendules à l’heure… juste.

Allez-vous vraiment perdre le contrôle ?

Comme dirigeant de l’entreprise, vous croyez avoir le contrôle. En affaires, la notion de contrôle est ambiguë, hachurée de zones grises. Qui a véritablement le contrôle de votre entreprise ? Vos actionnaires, votre banquier, vos clients, vos fournisseurs ont tous — collectivement — un certain contrôle sur votre entreprise.

Une étude de chercheurs de l’Université Harvard (The Founder’s Dilemma) démontre que des fondateurs motivés par le contrôle vont généralement prendre des décisions qui leur permettent de diriger l’entreprise, au détriment de l’accroissement de sa valeur. Selon Pearl Zhu (Digitizing Boardroom : The Multifaceted Aspects of Digital Ready Boards), le rôle du CA est de faire descendre l’équipe de direction de l’arbre pour lui faire voir la forêt.

Avec un CA, vous aurez inévitablement des comptes à rendre. Même si vous rendez des comptes, vous demeurez le capitaine du navire. Néanmoins, vous devez être prêt à faire preuve d’ouverture, de transparence et à entretenir une relation avec votre CA.

Est-ce que le CA peut gérer mon entreprise ?

Vous êtes responsable des opérations quotidiennes de votre entreprise. Vous possédez tous les pouvoirs et la capacité d’action requise pour assurer le bon fonctionnement de votre entreprise. Certains administrateurs connaissent bien les rudiments de la gestion puisqu’ils gèrent ou ont déjà géré des entreprises et des équipes.

La tentation est souvent grande pour ceux-ci de plonger dans la baignoire de la gestion avec vous. Mais, vous avez le bouchon de la baignoire. À titre d’administrateur, leur rôle se limite à accompagner, guider et orienter votre équipe de direction et non à gérer votre entreprise. Comme le dit le dicton : ¨nose in, fingers out!¨. Avec un CA, vous aurez le bénéfice de consulter des administrateurs cumulant ensemble plus de 100 ans d’expérience » (Solutions Keyboard).

Quels sont les 4 principaux avantages d’un CA ?

Un CA comporte plusieurs avantages pour votre entreprise, dont les suivants :

(1) briser l’isolement du président

Quand vient le moment de prendre des décisions importantes sur le destin de votre entreprise, les regards sont rivés sur vous. En période d’accalmie, cette responsabilité est plus facile à assumer. Cependant, quand le presto de la marmite saute, l’appui d’un CA aide à briser l’isolement et à vous éclairer dans les grandes décisions à la suite d’une réflexion partagée avec d’autres administrateurs expérimentés.

(2) source d’expertises complémentaires

Vous aurez le bénéfice de consulter des administrateurs cumulant collectivement plus de 100 ans d’expérience ! Utilisez le CA comme un tremplin pour vous propulser vers le sommet, comme un accélérateur de croissance.

(3) crédibilité accrue et réputation renforcée

Le CA accroît la crédibilité et renforce la réputation de votre entreprise. Vous cherchez du financement ou un nouveau partenaire ? L’appui d’un CA solide rassure les investisseurs potentiels, car il conduit à plus de rigueur dans la gestion de la performance et le suivi des résultats.

(4) force du réseau

Vous pourrez bénéficier du réseau des administrateurs pour renforcer vos projets d’affaires : nouveau marché, lancement d’un nouveau produit, recherche d’un fournisseur, etc. Pour des astuces sur le recrutement efficace d’administrateurs, nous vous invitons à consulter l’article suivant : Comité consultatif : sept erreurs de recrutement à éviter.

*Joanne Desjardins, LL.B., MBA, ASC, CRHA, est associée chez Keyboard, www.solutionskeyboard.com une firme spécialisée en gouvernance et en stratégie. Elle est aussi régulièrement invitée comme conférencière pour échanger sur la stratégie et la gouvernance. Elle rédige actuellement un livre sur la stratégie et la gouvernance.

Étude sur les éléments à prendre en ligne de compte par les comités de rémunération eu égard à la compensation globale des PDG de sociétés publiques aux É.U.

Ce matin, je partage avec vous les conclusions d’une enquête effectuée par Ira Kay et Blaine Martin, pour le compte de la SEC, et parue dans la revue Pay Governance.

Quelle part de l’accroissement de l’inégalité des revenus aux États-Unis a été occasionnée par les rémunérations « excessives » des CEO ? Cette inégalité est-elle attribuable à une défaillance de la gouvernance des sociétés ?

Le mandat répond à certaines questions de la SEC, notamment :

Question 1 : Is the recent increase in US income inequality caused primarily by the increase in the number of public company executives in the top .1% of earners?

Question 2 : Alternatively, is the recent increase in US income inequality caused primarily by the increase in the aggregate pay levels of public company executives in the top 1% and .1% of earners?

Question 3 : Is CEO pay aligned with the performance of their employer?

Question 4 : Have corporate governance failures caused excessive executive compensation levels at public companies, thus exacerbating the inequality issue?

Question 5 : Are shareholders dissatisfied with the US executive pay model?

Cet article apporte des réponses qui surprendront probablement les spécialistes de la gouvernance. Les auteurs tirent des conclusions très utiles pour les comités de rémunérations à l’occasion de l’évaluation de la paie de leurs CEO. « The conclusion of our research is that relatively high executive compensation at public companies, allegedly enabled by compliant boards, is not the primary explanation for rising income inequality in the US ».

Voici quelques considérations à l’intention des comités de rémunération :

Ensure that competitive executive compensation opportunity levels are monitored annually against the median of an appropriately-sized peer group. This will provide a robust context for the CEO pay ratio.

Ensure that executive compensation program design provides appropriate pay-for-performance linkage, including setting challenging performance goals and providing the majority of compensation in long-term equity.

Apply best-practice compensation policies including robust stock ownership guidelines, clawback provisions, and prohibitions on hedging and pledging company shares to further link executive income and wealth to the performance of the company.

Maintain strong corporate governance practices including nominating directors using an independent Nominating Committee, using independent compensation consultants and legal counsel, and holding executive sessions at each Compensation Committee meeting.

Ensure that all employees are competitively and appropriately paid relative to the profitability, fairness and economics of the company.

Consider whether the Compensation Committee should review supplemental analyses related to the CEO pay ratio and broad-based pay practices (e.g., comparison of executive versus broad-based pay increases, review of number of employees covered under benefit programs, and review of pay ratio and median employee data to peers).

Consider how the Company will address and explain the disclosure of the ratio of CEO to median employee pay in the 2018 proxy. Since supporters of the CEO pay ratio believe that this disclosure will reduce “excessive” CEO pay caused by weak governance, companies may need to be explicit in responding to this theory. The data and analysis presented here could help in this regard.

The SEC’s Madated CEO Pay Ratio in the Context of Income Inequality : Perspectives for Compensation Committees

Key Takeaways

While the income inequality controversy started as a sociological and public Policy debate, Compensation Committees should have a strong understanding of the Relationship between public company executive compensation and income inequality.

The impending disclosure of the ratio of CEO to median employee pay in 2018 proxy statements, as required Under Dodd–‐Frank, will dramatically bring such discussions into the Compensation Committee in the near future. Supporters of the CEO pay ratio believe that this disclosure will reduce “excessive” CEO pay and lower the pay multiple.

Many “overpaid” executives subject to weak boards and poor corporate governance for being the primary cause of US income inequality. This is not accurate. While corporate executives are paid well, public company executives represent a smaller portion of the highest .1% in more recent times than they did in the mid–‐1990s.

Additionally, for the top .1%, growth in public company executive compensation actually lags the growth in private company executive pay and finance Professional pay over the same 13–‐year time period.

Pay Governance’s analyses of realizable pay for performance indicate that pay–‐for–‐performance is operating among US companies.

Improvements in corporate governance practices combined with similar executive pay levels and designs for private company executives suggest that high levels of public company CEO pay are not the result of corporate governance failure.

Further, widespread investor support for say–‐on–‐pay votes in the past six years indicate broad investor support of the current executive compensation regime.

We make strong arguments that the CEO pay ratio for a particular company will be indicative of market–‐driven industry, size and performance factors, rather than a failure of corporate governance.

As Compensation Committees consider the context of inequality issues and executive compensation decisions, Committees should focus on robust corporate governance practices, independent advice, and the company’s strategy for addressing the disclosure of the ratio of CEO to median employee pay in 2018.

The complete publication, including footnotes, is available here.

Amendements à la loi canadienne sur les sociétés par actions : De quoi s’agit-il ?

Le 28 septembre 2016, le gouvernement fédéral a proposé un certain nombre de modifications à la Loi canadienne sur les sociétés par actions (projet de loi C-25) afin de clarifier les obligations de divulgation des émetteurs canadiens. Les amendements à la loi ont deux objectifs :

(1) s’assurer que certaines règles adoptées par le Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) soient clarifiées et incorporées dans la loi canadienne sur les sociétés par actions ;

(2) faire en sorte que la loi amendée reflète davantage les bonnes pratiques de gouvernance généralement reconnue.

Dans leur compte rendu sur les implications de ce projet de loi, paru sur le site du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, Louis-Martin O’Neill et Jennifer Longhurst, associés de la firme Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, discutent de trois changements susceptibles d’affecter la gouvernance et les modes de divulgation des sociétés.

Voici les changements proposés :

True majority voting: requiring shareholders to cast their votes “for” or “against” each individual director’s election (rather than slate voting), and prohibiting a director who has not been elected by a majority of the votes cast from serving as a direcror, except in “prescribed circumstances”;
Annual director elections: requiring corporations to hold annual elections for all directors of a company’s board, effectively prohibiting staggered boards; and
Diversity disclosures: requiring corporations to place before shareholders, at each AGM, information respecting diversity among the directors and among the members of senior management.

Je vous encourage à prendre connaissance de ce bref article.

L’article suivant est également : Proposed Changes to the Canada Business Corporations Act – How Could this Affect You?

Bonne lecture !

Proposed Canada Business Corporations Act Amendments: A New Era?

amendement-a-la-loi-canadienne-sur-les-societes-par-actions — Amendement à la loi canadienne sur les sociétés par actions | Proposed Changes to the Canada Business Corporations Act – How Could this Affect You?

True majority voting requirement

In 2014, the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) implemented rules requiring majority voting for most TSX-listed issuers. This entailed adopting a majority voting policy requiring any undersupported director (i.e., a nominee who does not receive a majority of “for” votes) in an uncontested director election to tender his or her resignation to the board; the board is then required to consider and, save for “exceptional circumstances,” accept that resignation and publicly announce its decision. Since then, there has been some lingering controversy surrounding the TSX’s majority voting standard as a result of many boards rejecting the resignations of undersupported directors in reliance on those so-called exceptional circumstances, despite the expressed will of the shareholders.

For example, our Davies Governance Insights 2015 report revealed that in 2015 only one of 10 directors who failed to achieve majority support from shareholders had their resignation accepted by the board. The report explained how some of the boards relied on the “exceptional circumstances” carve-out to allow undersupported directors to remain on the board. Our most recent Davies Governance Insights 2016 report, however, suggests that this trend may be changing: in 2016, in those cases where directors of issuers on the TSX/S&P Composite and SmallCap indices received less than majority approval, the boards accepted their resignations.

The Proposed Amendments would put an end to this debate. They provide that (1) the shareholders of a distributing corporation will be able to vote only “for” or “against” each individual director (as opposed to withholding their votes); and (2) each director is elected only if the number of “for” votes represents a majority of the total shareholder votes cast. Slate voting would no longer be permitted, except for certain “prescribed corporations” (to be outlined in revised regulations, not yet published, to the CBCA). Moreover, the Proposed Amendments also provide that a director who is not elected by a majority cannot be appointed by the remaining directors to fill a vacancy on the board, except in “prescribed circumstances.”

In doing so, the Proposed Amendments would reverse the current practice that has developed under the TSX rules: rather than having an undersupported nominee elected as a matter of law and leaving to the board the decision on whether to accept their resignation, the Proposed Amendments would mean that a nominee who fails to get a majority of “for” votes is not elected as a matter of law, and may be appointed by the directors only in “prescribed circumstances.” Whether the Proposed Amendments will result in meaningful change to the current practice for TSX-listed companies will, however, depend on what those “prescribed circumstances” are, to be set out in the not yet released regulations to the CBCA.

Annual elections now required

The TSX rules currently require its listed companies to hold annual director elections, effectively prohibiting staggered boards, a fairly uncommon practice in Canada. The Proposed Amendments will bring the CBCA up to speed with this current corporate governance best practice. We note that an exception included in the Proposed Amendments allows for elections to be held in accordance with existing CBCA requirements, which allow for three-year terms and staggered boards, in the case of “any prescribed class of distributing corporations” or “any prescribed circumstances respecting distributing corporations.” There is currently no such exception in the TSX rules, save for foreign issuers. The impact of this change will, therefore, depend upon the prescribed categories of corporations and circumstances that will be proposed in the CBCA regulations, if this change is implemented.

Disclosure relating to diversity

TSX-listed and other non-venture issuers are currently required, under National Instrument 58-101—Disclosure of Corporate Governance Practices (NI 58-101), to disclose certain information relating to the diversity of their board and executive officers, including whether they have adopted a written policy regarding female representation on the board, whether they consider the level of female representation when making board or executive officer nominations or appointments, and whether they have adopted a target regarding the representation of women on the board or in senior management; if not, the issuer must disclose why not. The Proposed Amendments to the CBCA would require “prescribed corporations” to provide the “prescribed information” respecting diversity among their directors and members of senior management.

Once again, the “prescribed corporations” and “prescribed information” that will need to be disclosed have not yet been determined. Accordingly, until proposed regulations clarifying these concepts have been released, it remains unclear whether the Proposed Amendments will alter the existing “comply or explain” model under NI 58-101 or impose stricter requirements on subject companies. We do not, however, expect the Proposed Amendments to impose targets or quotas on issuers; instead, they are likely to promote a similar approach to that currently in place under securities laws.

Conclusions

The majority voting requirement set forth in the Proposed Amendments is likely to bring an end to the debate over those circumstances in which an undersupported director may remain on the board. The questions, however, that are still unanswered will be whether boards will be inclined to use the Proposed Amendments to fill a vacancy by appointing an undersupported director whose failed election created the vacancy in the first place; and, in such a situation, how stringent the “prescribed circumstances” will be that would allow the directors to appoint an undersupported director. We also note there are some inconsistencies between the TSX rules and the Proposed Amendments that could subject some TSX-listed CBCA companies to potentially different (and potentially conflicting) sets of rules. We expect the regulators are attuned to and will be focused on minimizing that risk. In any case, if the Proposed Amendments are adopted, we expect TSX-listed issuers that are governed by the CBCA may need to revisit and revise their majority voting policies to ensure compliance with the Proposed Amendments.

While some view the Proposed Amendments as a welcome modernization of the federal corporate statute and a reflection of the need to enhance companies’ corporate governance practices, in many ways the Proposed Amendments are entrenching practices or policies that are already addressed under the TSX rules and securities laws. By delving into these areas, there remains a risk that the Proposed Amendments could lead to compliance and interpretational issues, as well as confusion over the appropriate mandates for each of the regulators, a concern expressed by some commentators in response to Industry Canada’s initial December 2013 consultation paper on the potential CBCA amendments. In addition, several undetermined exceptions and terms that will be laid out in revised CBCA regulations have yet to be published—only once they are will the full impact of the Proposed Amendments be known.

Prélude à un code de gouvernance aux É.U. !

Voici un bref article de Gary Larkin, associé à The Conference Board Governance Center, qui porte sur la perspective de concevoir un code de gouvernance qui s’adresse à l’ensemble des entreprises publiques (cotées) américaines.

Le projet de code est l’initiative de quelques leaders d’entreprises cotées, de gestionnaires d’actif, d’un gestionnaire de fonds de pension et d’un actionnaire activiste.

Cet énoncé des grands principes de gouvernance se veut un exercice devant jeter les bases d’un code de gouvernance comme on en retrouve dans plusieurs pays, notamment au Royaume-Uni.

Voici les points saillants des principes retenus :

Every board should meet regularly without the CEO present, and every board should have active and direct engagement with executives below the CEO level.

Directors should be elected by a majority of either “for” or “against/withhold” votes (with abstentions and non-votes not be counted)

Board refreshment should always be considered in order that the board’s skillset and perspectives remain current.

Every board should have members with complementary and diverse skills, backgrounds and experiences.

If the board decides on a combined CEO/Chair role, it is essential that the board have a strong independent director.

Institutional investors that make decisions on proxy issues important to long-term value creation should have access to the company, its management, and, in some circumstances, the board.

Companies should only provide earnings guidance to the extent they believe it is beneficial to shareholders.

Bonne lecture !

It’s Commonsense to Have a U.S. Corporate Governance Code

Over the summer, one of the most interesting pieces of corporate governance literature was the Commonsense Corporate Governance Principles.

The publication was the result of meetings between a group of leading executives of public companies, asset managers, a public pension fund, and a shareholder activist. The principles themselves may not have broken new ground—they addressed such basic issues as director independence, board refreshment and diversity, the need for earnings guidance, and shareholder engagement. But the fact that such a publication was released at a time when some in Congress to roll back Dodd-Frank corporate-governance-related regulations is impressive.

It’s impressive because of who was in the meetings. It’s impressive because the meetings took place without any government or third-party instigation. It’s impressive because it might be the beginning of a new strategy for overseeing corporate governance in the United States. It shows that sometimes industry can lead by example without rules and regulations to tell them how to govern their own companies and boards.

Maybe these principles could be the start of the first true US corporate governance code, something that our brethren in the UK have had for years. Even smaller markets such as South Africa and Singapore have codes that are used to guide corporate governance.

Granted, those at the meetings, some of who included J. P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, Berkshire Hathaway chief Warren Buffett, General Motors head Mary Barra, BlackRock Chair and CEO Larry Fink, and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board President and CEO Mark Machin might not have envisioned themselves as U.S. corporate governance pioneers. But it’s a first step toward a true principles-based approach to good corporate governance in a country that is used to following rules and hiring attorneys to find the loopholes.

If you look at the main points made in the Commonsense Principles, you can see the foundation for such a code:

Every board should meet regularly without the CEO present, and every board should have active and direct engagement with executives below the CEO level.

Directors should be elected by a majority of either “for” or “against/withhold” votes (with abstentions and non-votes not be counted)

Board refreshment should always be considered in order that the board’s skillset and perspectives remain current.

Every board should have members with complementary and diverse skills, backgrounds and experiences.

If the board decides on a combined CEO/Chair role, it is essential that the board have a strong independent director.

Institutional investors that make decisions on proxy issues important to long-term value creation should have access to the company, its management, and, in some circumstances, the board.

Companies should only provide earnings guidance to the extent they believe it is beneficial to shareholders.

Microsoft, a Governance Center member, is satisfied with the Commonsense Principles because it aligns with what it has in place, according to a blog from Microsoft Corporate Secretary John Seethoff. “For example, we’ve made a concerted effort to assure board refreshment occurs with a focus on diversity in skillsets, backgrounds, and experiences,” he wrote. “The Principles agree with this emphasis, asserting, ‘Diversity along multiple dimensions is critical to a high-functioning board. Director candidates should be drawn from a rigorously diverse pool.’ Board tenure receives similarly thoughtful consideration, with the Principles underscoring the need to temper ‘fresh thinking and new perspectives’ with ‘age and experience.’”

Seethoff concluded: “At Microsoft, we’ve long believed that good corporate governance encourages accountability and transparency, as well as promotes sound decision-making to support our business over time. The ultimate goal is to create a system that provides appropriate structure for the company at present, allows flexibility to change in the future, and has a long-term perspective that matches our business objectives and strategy. As part of this open, constructive mindset, we applaud the leaders for outlining these Principles and look forward to continued dialogue on this important effort.”

If you ask me, the Commonsense Principles can definitely be the US Corporate Governance Code Version 1.0. They could be treated like climate change agreements (i.e. the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement) where countries come together and sign on. The original group of executives could hold a follow-up meeting or convention that would allow US companies to promise to follow the principles, similar to The Giving Pledge started by Buffet and Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

L’évolution de la divulgation des comités d’audit aux actionnaires

Voici un article d’Ann Yerger, directrice du Center for Board Matters, de la firme Ernst & Young, qui porte sur l’évolution significative des politiques de divulgation des comités d’audit aux actionnaires des entreprises cotées en bourse aux États-Unis en 2106. L’article est paru sur le site du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance le 9 octobre.

L’étendue des divulgations aux actionnaires est vraiment très importante dans certains cas. Par exemple, en 2012, seulement 42 % des entreprises dévoilaient explicitement que le comité d’audit était responsable de l’engagement, de la rémunération et de la surveillance des auditeurs externes, alors qu’en 2016, 82 % divulguent, souvent en détail, les informations de cette nature.

Plusieurs autres résultats font état de changements remarquables dans la reddition de compte des comités d’audit aux actionnaires des entreprises.

Ceux-ci sont maintenant plus en mesure d’évaluer la portée des décisions des comités d’audit eu égard à la qualité du travail des auditeurs externes, aux raisons invoquées pour changer d’auditeur externe, à la fixation du mandat de l’auditeur externe, à la composition du comité d’audit, à l’augmentation des honoraires des firmes comptables dans les quatre catégories suivantes : audit, relié aux travaux d’audit, fiscalité et autres services connexes, etc.

Bonne lecture !

Audit Committee Reporting to Shareholders in 2016

Audit committees have a key role in overseeing the integrity of financial reporting. Nevertheless, relatively little information is required to be disclosed by US public companies about the audit committee’s important work. Since our first publication in this series in 2012, we have described efforts by investors, regulators and other stakeholders to seek increased audit-related disclosures, as well as the resulting voluntary disclosures to respond to this interest.

Over 2015–2016, US regulators have placed a spotlight on audit-related disclosures and financial reporting more generally. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) have both taken action to consider the possibility of requiring new disclosures relating to the audit.

SEC representatives also have used speeches to urge companies and audit committees to increase disclosures in this area voluntarily. While additional disclosure requirements for audit committees are not expected in the near term, regulators continue to monitor developments in this area. This post seeks to shed light on the evolving audit-related disclosure landscape.

Context

Public company audit committees are responsible for overseeing financial reporting, including the external audit. Under US securities laws, audit committees are “directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight” of the external auditor, and must include a report in annual proxy statements about their work. This audit committee report, however, currently must affirm only that the committee carried out certain specific responsibilities related to communications with the external auditor, and this requirement has not changed since 1999.

In recent years, a variety of groups have brought attention to the relative lack of information available about the audit committee and the audit, including their view that this area of disclosure may not have kept up with the needs of investors and other proxy statement users. These groups include pension funds, asset managers, investors, corporate governance groups, and domestic and foreign regulators. As efforts to seek additional information have continued, there has been a steady increase in voluntary audit-related disclosures.

Over the last year, the SEC has taken a series of actions to consider whether and how to improve transparency around audit committees, audits and financial reporting more generally. The combined effect of these activities has been to increase engagement by issuers, audit firms, investors and other stakeholders in discussions about the current state of financial reporting related disclosure as well as how it should change.

Findings

Our analysis of the 2016 proxy statements of Fortune 100 companies indicates that voluntaryaudit-related disclosures continue to trend upward in a number of areas. The CBM data for this review is based on the 78 companies on the 2016 Fortune 100 list that filed proxy statements each year from 2012 to 2016 for annual meetings through August 15, 2016. Below are highlights from our research:

The percentage of companies that disclosed factors considered by the audit committee when assessing the qualifications and work quality of the external auditor increased to 50%, up from 42% in 2015. In 2012, only 17% of audit committees disclosed this information.

Another significant increase was in disclosures stating that the audit committee believed that the choice of external auditor was in the best interests of the company and/or the shareholders. In 2016, 73% of companies disclosed such information; in 2015, this percentage was 63%. In 2012, only 3% of companies made this disclosure.

The audit committees of 82% of the companies explicitly stated that they are responsible for the appointment, compensation and oversight of the external auditor; in 2012, only 42% of audit committees provided such disclosures.

31% of companies provided information about the reasons for changes in fees paid to the external auditor compared to 21% the previous year. Reasons provided in these disclosures include one-time events, such as a merger or acquisition. Under current SEC rules, companies are required to disclose fees paid to the external auditor, divided into the following categories: audit, audit-related, tax and all other fees. They are not, however, required to discuss the reasons why these fees have increased or decreased. From 2012 to 2016, the percentage of companies disclosing information to explain changes in audit fees rose from 9% to 31%. Additional CBM research examined the disclosures of the subset of studied companies (43) that had changes in audit fees of +/- 5% or more compared to the previous year. Out of these 43 companies, roughly 20% provided explanatory disclosures regarding the change in audit fees.

29 of the 43 companies had fee increases of 5% or more, out of which 8 companies disclosed the reasons for the increases. 14 of the 43 companies had fee decreases of 5% or more, out of which only one company provided an explanatory disclosure.

53% of companies disclosed that the audit committee considered the impact of changing auditors when assessing whether to retain the current auditor. This was a 6 percentage point increase over 2015. In 2012, this disclosure was made by 3% of the Fortune 100 companies. Over the past five years, the number of companies disclosing that the audit committee was involved in the selection of the lead audit partner has grown dramatically, up to 73% in 2016. In 2015, 67% of companies disclosed this information, while in 2012, only 1% of companies did so.

51% of companies disclosed that they have three or more financial experts on their audit committees, up from 47% in 2015 and 36% in 2012.

Summary: Trends in Audit Committee Disclosure

(Cliquez pour agrandir)

Les devoirs des administrateurs eu égard à un climat de travail malsain | Un cas pratique

Voici un cas de gouvernance publié sur le site de Julie Garland McLellan* qui illustre les contradictions entre les valeurs énoncées par une école privée et celles qui semblent animer les administrateurs et les parents.

Le cas montre comment un administrateur, nouvellement élu sur un CA d’une école privée, peut se retrouver dans une situation embarrassante impliquant des comportements de harcèlement et de menaces qui affectent la santé mentale et le bien-être des employés.

Cette situation semble se présenter de plus en plus fréquemment dans les institutions d’enseignement qui visent des rendements très (trop !) élevés.

Comment Ignacio peut-il s’y prendre pour bien faire comprendre aux administrateurs de son CA leurs devoirs et leurs obligations légales d’assurer un climat de travail sain, absent d’agression de la part de certains parents ?

Le cas présente, de façon claire, une situation de culture organisationnelle déficiente ; puis, trois experts en gouvernance se prononcent sur le dilemme qui se présente aux administrateurs qui vivent des expériences similaires.

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont toujours les bienvenus.

Un cas culture organisationnelle déficiente !

Ignacio is an old boy of a private school with a proud sporting tradition. He was invited onto the board last year when a long-serving director retired. The school is well run with a professional principal who has the respect of the staff as well as many of the boys.

The school has worked hard to develop academic excellence and its place in rankings has improved with a greater percentage of boys qualifying for university.

At the last board meeting the CEO was absent. The chairman explained that he had taken stress leave because he couldn’t cope with bullying from some of the parents. Some directors sniggered and the rest looked embarrassed. There were a few comments about ‘needing to grow a backbone’, ‘being a pansy’, and ‘not having the guts to stand up to parents or lead the teams to victory on the field’.

Ignacio was aghast – he asked about the anti-harassment and workplace health and safety policies and was given leave by the chair « to look into ‘covering our backs’ if necessary ».

Ignacio met with the HR manager and discovered the policies were out of date and appeared to have been cut and pasted from the original Department of Education advice without customisation. From his experience running a business Ignacio is aware of the importance of mental health issues in the modern workplace and also of the legal duty of directors to provide a workplace free from bullying and harassment. School staff are all aware of a discrepancy between the stated School values and those of the board and some parents. The HR manager tells him that recent bullying by parents has become more akin to verbal and even physical assault. Staff believe the board will not support them against fee paying parents even though the school is, in theory, a not-for-profit institution.

How can Ignacio help lead his board to an understanding of their duty to provide a safe workplace?

Chris’s Answer …..

Julie’s Answer ….

Leanne’s Answer ….

*Julie Garland McLellan is a practising non-executive director and board consultant based in Sydney, Australia.

Quelle est la rémunération globale des administrateurs canadiens ?

C’est une question que beaucoup de personnes me posent, et qui n’est pas évidente à répondre !

L’article ci-dessous, publié par Martin Mittelstaedt, chercheur et ex-rédacteur au Globe and Mail, apporte un éclairage très intéressant sur la question de la rémunération des administrateurs canadiens.

Les études sur le sujet sont rares et donnent des résultats différents compte tenu de la taille, de la nature privée ou publique des entreprises, du secteur d’activité, des différentes composantes de la rémunération globale, etc.

De manière générale, il semble que les rémunérations des administrateurs canadiens et américains soient similaires et que les postes d’administrateurs des entreprises publiques commandent une rémunération globale d’environ quatre fois la rémunération offerte par les entreprises privées.

Une étude montre que la base médiane de la rémunération des administrateurs de sociétés privées au Canada est de 25 000 $, avec un jeton de présence de 1 500 $ et quatre réunions annuelles. Le nombre d’administrateurs est de six, incluant trois administrateurs indépendants et une femme ! La somme de la rémunération globale s’établirait à environ 31 000 $ US. Mais on parle ici de grandes entreprises privées…

Le montant de la rémunération dépend aussi beaucoup des plans de distribution d’actions, des privilèges, des bonis, etc.

Évidemment, pour toute entreprise publique, il est facile de connaître la rémunération détaillée des administrateurs et des cinq hauts dirigeants puisque ces renseignements se retrouvent dans les circulaires aux actionnaires.

Je vous encourage à lire cet article. Vous en saurez plus long sur les raisons qui font que les informations sont difficiles à obtenir dans le secteur privé.

Bonne lecture !

How much is a director worth ?

Determining director compensation at private companies is more of an art than a science, with a wide range of practices and no one-size-fits-all formula.

Unlike publicly traded companies, where detailed information about director remuneration is as close as the nearest proxy circular, compensation at private boards is like “a black box,” according to Steve Chan, principal at Hugessen Consulting, who says retainers, meeting fees and share-based awards “are all over the map.”

Not much is known about private director compensation “for good reason,” observes David Anderson, president of Anderson Governance Group. “There is not a lot of data out there.”

PRIVATELY UNDERPAID?

Private company directorships can be prized assignments because they don’t involve the heavy compliance and regulatory burdens that occupy increasing amounts of time at public company boards.

But what private boards should be paid is difficult to determine, when there is little research to guide individual directors or companies. Some of the available data suggest private directors are being underpaid, at least relative to their public counterparts. But this information does not include the fact that the work may be different and much of the compensation at public boards may not ultimately pay off because it is linked to share price performance.

It is difficult to benchmark best practices with so little hard data, making it unsurprising that how best to set private company directors’ compensation is the most frequently asked question made by members to the ICD.

One of the few ongoing attempts to analyze compensation indicates remuneration is far higher at public boards, about four times higher in fact, although the amounts are skewed by the heavy use of stock-linked awards at publicly traded companies.

The private company survey, by Lodestone Global, was based on a questionnaire posed to members of the Young Presidents’ Organization, an international group of corporate présidents and CEOs, including many from Canada.

The Lodestone survey looked at medium-sized family or closely held firms, companies that are more established than early-stage startups, but smaller than large global corporations.

“The survey is not casually designed. The data is pretty rigorous and it’s global,” says Bernard Tenenbaum, managing partner at Princeton, N.J.-based Lodestone.

Tenenbaum says he started investigating private company board compensation because of the paucity of data on the subject. No one seemed to know what was going on. “People kept asking me, ‘Well how much should we pay directors?’ I’d say: ‘I don’t know. How much do you pay them now?’ And I started surveying.”

The firm’s most recent survey, based on 2014 data, had responses from more than 250 private companies, including 19 from Canada. The median revenue at the Canadian companies was $100-million, with the median number of employees at 325.

According to Tenenbaum, the median Canadian retainer was $25,000, with a $1,500 meeting fee and four meetings annually. The median number of directors was six, with three independent and one woman. The total of fees and retainers came to $31,000 (all dollar figures U.S.)

Interestingly, the overall U.S. compensation figure matched the Canadian one, but with a different composition. The median U.S. retainer was lower at $21,000, but the meeting fee was higher at $2,500. Including a few other miscellaneous items, like teleconference fees, U.S. compensation was $33,000, compared to $32,250 in Canada, a closeness that Tenenbaum termed “a kissing distance.”

The Lodestone figures give an indication of director compensation, although it is worth cautioning that the sample size is small, the figures are based on the median or middle-ranked firm, and there was a wide variety in size among the companies, given that they included a few smaller tech and industrial firms.

To benchmark private company director compensation, it is worthwhile to look at what comparable publicly traded companies are paying. One useful comparator is the smaller companies embedded in the BDO 600 survey of director compensation at medium-sized public companies. It has access to highly accurate data based on shareholder proxy circulars.

BDO’s 2014 survey found that among firms with revenue between $25-million and $325-million, cash compensation through retainer and committee fees averaged $54,000, while directors typically received another $65,000 in stock awards and options for a total of $119,000.

There is a small amount of information available in Canada on private board compensation, but the amount of data isn’t large enough to make generalized statements on remuneration and involves larger companies.

For example, in its director compensation, Canadian Tire Corp. breaks out amounts paid to the company’s non-publicly traded banking subsidiary, Canadian Tire Bank. In 2014, three directors on both boards were paid about $55,000 each for retainers and meeting fees for serving at the bank. Similarly, Loblaw Companies Ltd. paid $58,000 to a director who also served on President’s Choice Bank, a privately-held subsidiary.

The amounts are relatively low for blue-chip Canadian companies, but both banks are far smaller than their parent companies, with Canadian Tire Bank at $5.6-billion in assets and PC Bank at $3.3-billion.

Hugessen’s Chan says that in his experience, the larger, family-run private companies that have global operations compensate directors at roughly the same amounts as similarly sized public firms.

“Among the larger public companies versus the private companies, they’re comparable,” Chan says.

PUBLICLY EXPOSED

Tenenbaum says that based on his research and the figures from BDO, directors are being paid about $20,000 annually for taking on the added hassle of serving on a public company. He discounted the value of the stock-based compensation because it is conditional on share-price performance.

“There is a premium that you pay a director for taking the risk” of public company exposure, Tenenbaum says.

Directors also need to take into account some of the non-monetary factors of the board experience. Given that so much time on a public board is spent on compliance with regulatory requirements, being freed of this responsibility has value.

“When you’re on a private board, you don’t need to worry about all of the compliance that you have to worry about on a public company board,” says Larry Macdonald, who has served on both types of boards in the oil and gas sector. “You can spend more time on the issues which are probably more important to the company on a private board than you can on public board.”

Macdonald currently chairs publicly-traded Vermilion Energy Inc., but has also served on several private and volunteer boards.

One consequence of the difference in focus is that private boards can often have fewer members because directors can be more focused on company business needs, rather than on compliance requirements. Decision making can also be quicker and easier.

Macdonald says a public board may need eight to 10 people to handle the volume of work, compared to only five or six on a similar private company. As an example of the efficiency of a private board, a company that has a particularly good year and wants to pay employees a bonus can easily decide to do so.

At a public company, however, making this payment wouldn’t be as straightforward. Directors would have to compile a detailed explanation of why they wanted to pay the bonus and include it in shareholder circulars.

While some companies are downgrading the importance of meeting fees, Macdonald thinks they are necessary, with a range of $1,000 to $1,500 being sufficient. “There should be a permeeting fee. You want your directors to show up in person, if at all possible, and if you’re not going to give them a permeeting fee they’re going to be phoning it in or not showing up, so you’ve got to keep everybody interested,” he says.

EQUITY COMPENSATION

He would set the retainer with an eye to any equity compensation. “If there is a pretty good option plan, I would think that $10,000 a year would be adequate, but if the option plan is weaker, you have to up the annual fee,” Macdonald says.

The amount of equity reserved for directors in private companies is a disputed topic. Tenenbaum says equity compensation at private companies, in his experience, is rare. But Chan says a figure often used is to allocate 10 percent of the equity for directors and executives.

If the director is “pounding the pavement with the CEO, a big chunk ofthe [equity] pool might go to directors,” Chan says.

The amount of equity reserved for executives and the board could be as high as 20 percent to 30 percent in the early life of a technology company, but lower than 10 percent in a capital intensive business. “It all depends on size. You’re not going to give 10 percent away of a $1-billion company,” he says.

Macdonald considers the 10 percent of stock reserved for management and directors a good ball park figure. The bulk of the stock typically goes to management, with one or two percent earmarked for directors, he says.

RICHER REWARDS

Public boards are typically egalitarian, with all directors receiving the same base compensation. Private boards, however, can and do pay differing amounts, depending on the specialized skills companies are trying to assemble among their directors. Macdonald says a private oil company looking to pick up older fields, which may have environmental issues, might award extra compensation to attract a director with recognized skills in health, safety and environment.

To be sure, compensation is only one factor in attracting directors to a board. Tenenbaum says academic research has found that the reasons directors cite to join boards are led by the quality of top management, the opportunity to learn and to be challenged. Personal prestige, compensation and stock ownership are far down the list.

These factors may explain why many people want to serve on private boards. “The qualitative experience of private company directors is quite different from public company directors,” says Anderson.

“They avoid a lot of the perceived risk of public company boards and they get the benefit of doing what, as business people, they really like doing, which is thinking about the business and applying their knowledge and experience to business problems.”

This article originally appeared in the Director Journal, a publication of the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD). Permission has been granted by the ICD to use this article for non-commercial purposes including research, educational materials and online resources. Other uses, such as selling or licensing copies, are prohibited.

Assurer une efficacité supérieure du conseil d’administration

Aujourd’hui, je cède la parole à Johanne Bouchard* qui agit, de nouveau, à titre d’auteure invitée sur mon blogue en gouvernance.

Celle-ci a une solide expérience d’interventions de consultation auprès de conseils d’administration de sociétés américaines ainsi que d’accompagnements auprès de hauts dirigeants de sociétés publiques (cotées), d’organismes à but non lucratif (OBNL) et d’entreprises en démarrage.

Dans cet article publié dans la revue Ethical Boardroom, Achieving higher board effectiveness, elle aborde un sujet qui lui tient particulièrement à cœur : Assurer une efficacité supérieure du conseil d’administration.

L’auteure insiste sur les points suivants :

Le suivi des réunions du CA par le président du conseil
L’intégration des nouveaux membres du conseil
La formation en gouvernance et l’apprentissage des rouages de l’entreprise
Les sessions de planification stratégique
L’évaluation du leadership du CEO, du conseil et du management

L’expérience de Johanne Bouchard auprès d’entreprises cotées en bourse est soutenue ; elle en tire des enseignements utiles pour tous les types de conseils d’administration.

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont toujours les bienvenus.

Achieving higher board effectiveness

« Achieving higher board effectiveness goes well beyond adhering to rules, regulations, legal and ethical compliance. While there are many experts who address the regulatory requirements, an aspect that requires the utmost attention, and is often underestimated and even ignored, is the human element »

That is the basic and subtle dynamics and the complexities inherent in having individuals with diverse experience, different views and perspective, and varied cultural and personal backgrounds gathering a few times a year to serve an entity to which they are not privy on a day-to-day basis. It’s further complicated by the fact that these individuals often don’t know each other outside of their board service.

How can a board maintain its independence, make critical decisions, provide valuable and timely insights to management and be effective as a group of individuals if they have minimal access to the ins and outs of an organisation? How can they truly assess the leadership potential of the CEO, the board and management and effectively minimise vulnerabilities and risk when they’re outsiders?

There are initiatives that a board should commit to that can heighten the potential of every director within the context of their roles and responsibilities, allowing them collectively to achieve higher effectiveness. It is fundamentally critical to the board’s ability to stay current, effective and focussed in enhancing long-term shareholder value.

These initiatives include: board meeting follow-ups with the chair and the CEO; on-boarding and integration of new directors; educational sessions; strategic planning sessions; and CEO, board and management leadership effectiveness assessments.

Board meeting follow-ups with the chair and CEO

Whenever directors come together to meet to fulfill their roles and responsibilities, the chair and the CEO can’t assume that the directors have felt that they’ve made their optimal contributions; that they didn’t feel intimidated or even shy to share their insights. That they felt at ease with the dynamics of the meeting, were satisfied with the results of the board meeting and were comfortable with the way the chair led the meeting and the CEO interacted as an executive director. It is important for a chair and for the CEO to take the initiative of reaching out to all directors immediately after the meeting to do a simple check-in.

This provides an opportunity to gain input about the meeting’s outcomes as well as following up with each director on a one-on-one basis to seek their views about the meeting. It’s an opportunity to constructively share their expectations about the director for that meeting and his/her level of preparedness for that meeting and any committee duties, rather than not addressing it or postponing it to an annual board effectiveness assessment. The individual directors’ effectiveness (including the CEO) as well as the chair’s, are too important not to be handled after each meeting. These check-ins are significant to ensure that the possible ‘elephants in the boardroom’ are promptly addressed. They also enable each director and the chair, and each director and the CEO to get to know each other better.

In any relationship, it is important to have the ability to readily share what works, what is missing and what could have been done better. It takes time and, from my experiences with boards, it makes a great difference when every director is prepared to allocate time between meetings to evaluate the prior meeting before attending the next one. These frank exchanges benefit the chair in preparing the agenda for the next meeting and in leading the board meeting itself. Furthermore, it is also the chair’s responsibility to poll each director, in person or over the phone, to get a pulse about his/her ability to stay abreast of the strategy.

On-boarding and integration

It is tempting to let a director join a board and attend his/her first meeting without proper on-boarding. A board can’t afford for a new director to join for his/her first board meeting without a formal on-boarding process. A director is a human being who is being asked to participate, not to simply fill in a seat. A formal on-boarding can include a meeting with the chair and the CEO shortly after the director has been voted in by the board to formally welcome him/her, confirm their expectations and his/her expectations in having joined the board; bring the director up to date with any crisis, strategic priorities and networking opportunities where he/she could specifically provide insights; and to update the director about board governance processes the directors need to understand.

It is good business, tactful and sensible to acknowledge the need to create a proper introduction of the board and the organisation for all new directors as well as introducing and integrating the incoming directors within the board integration event can last 30 minutes to an hour and is planned and professionally facilitated, thus ensuring that the board doesn’t create a climate of ‘us and them’ as the board augments and/or is refreshed. Proper on-boarding and integration enables new directors to quickly get to know the rest of the board and enables all board directors to further connect, respect and trust each other. While a brief session, it is very powerful to welcoming an incoming director and to further integrating all existing directors within the board.

Educational sessions

Our business ecosystem is becoming more complex and is being intermittently disrupted. A board can’t afford not to be current on the trends that can affect their organisation, even if, at a glance, the trend might not appear to have any potential impact on their strategic roadmap. It is important for a CEO with his/her chair to be on top of trends and to identify specific topics that need to be addressed internally at a high level to keep the board informed as a group – but not necessarily within the scheduled meeting, due to time constraints.

I have written in the past about ‘the four pillars’ that make a great relationship between a chair and a CEO. One of the pillars is communication. It is crucial for the chair and CEO to take the time to speak in person, or at least on the phone, or remotely via video-conferencing tools to check in about their relationship, their effectiveness in their respective roles and to ensure that together they address how to keep the board current about market and industry dynamics. Topics can include how the digital economy is impacting the organisation; the cybersecurity evolution and its associated threats; new strategic considerations for the organisation, vis-à-vis corporate social responsibility; shifting the organisation’s focus from shareholders to stakeholders; making an organisational commitment to sustainability, etc.

There is a plethora of topics that a board must address and can’t realistically address within their formal meetings. This creates an opportunity for the board to further align on strategic priorities, to further ascertain how vulnerable the composition of its board may or may not be and whether the board composition needs to be refreshed or augmented. Industry and expert speakers can be invited to present and conduct small roundtables at these educational sessions.

Strategic planning sessions

Since the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) in the United States stipulates that boards have the responsibility to engage in the development and amendment of strategy, it is imperative for boards to participate in an annual strategic planning session – in addition to each director staying current about the industry trends. Not only are strategic planning sessions important to aligning the board on strategy, but they also contribute to evaluating human behaviour dynamics and assessing the entire leadership potential of the board.

Directors must be and stay fully informed about the organisation they serve. In particular, when directors are independent, they must have knowledge of the industry and about the business they commit to serve, given that they are not connected to the business, meeting only four-to-six times a year. Better aligned boards can be more effective in assessing the accuracy, completeness, relevance and validity of information presented to them.

A board has an opportunity to really see in action the effectiveness of their CEO when participating in the annual strategic planning session. Likewise, a CEO gets the same opportunity to experience first-hand the agility of its board during such sessions.

The chair (and CEO) should commit to an annual strategic planning session. This initiative ensures that:

■ Board effectiveness is not affected by information asymmetry that would impede its ability to adequately provide guidance, make decisions and constructively challenge the executive team. The board must be continually informed about industry dynamics, the competitive landscape, the organisation’s business model, its value proposition and its strategic milestones. It is unrealistic that a board can approve financial projections, detect overly ambitious production targets and ascertain budgets and profitability objectives without a clear understanding of strategy and key strategic performance indicators

■ The board is exposed to organisational dynamics and to the dynamics of the CEO with selected or most key executive members, which will assist with its identifying warning flags about the company’s strategic priorities and help reconsider performance indicators as needed

The adoption of strategic planning enables the CEO to share more openly among themselves, with the CEO and with management. I have often seen as a result of these sessions healthier effectiveness within the entire Pivotal Leadership Trio (Board, CEO and Executive Team).

CEO, board and management leadership effectiveness assessment

The effectiveness of a board is highly dependent on having the right leader for the organisation during major and critical strategic inflection points of the organisation, having the right leader of the board with the optimal board composition, and the right leadership in all functional areas of the organisation.

A board needs to know when the CEO can’t step up to leadership and organisational challenges, as well as when any board director or member of the management team can’t fulfil their role.

CEO leadership effectiveness assessment

For the board to adequately fulfil its duty of addressing CEO succession, it has a responsibility to evaluate the CEO’s leadership effectiveness. A board can’t assume that the CEO has the skill set, experience and leadership maturity to lead the organisation through different stages of growth, crisis and changes.

This initiative should be conducted by an objective third party. The process should include:

■ A custom and comprehensive inquiry, specifically created to evaluate the CEO of the organisation that the board serves

■ A custom inquiry to address the CEO’s role as an executive director on the board

■ In-person meetings conducted between the CEO and a third-party professional, and between each direct report to the CEO and the third-party professional and each director of the board and the third-party professional

■ Presentation of the CEO’s leadership effectiveness results to the CEO and the chair before being presented to the board as a group

Board and management leadership effectiveness assessments

The evaluation of the directors and the management team also needs to be conducted annually to appropriately support overall succession planning. These should ideally be conducted at the same time as the CEO’s to maximise everyone’s time. For the board assessments, the process should include:

■ A custom and comprehensive inquiry, specifically created to evaluate the board thoroughly

■ In-person meetings between directors and the third-party professional

■ Custom inquiries to capture the insights of the CFO, the CHRO and the general counsel

■ In-person individual meetings between the CFO, the CHRO, the general counsel and the third-party professional

■ Presentation of the board leadership assessment results to the chair and the governance chair before they’re presented to the board as a group

A similar process needs to be adopted for the management team.

It is good practice for the board assessment inquiry to include a director self-assessment, a peer review and an examination of the governance practices.

Leadership effectiveness assessments are natural processes and need to be positioned as such and should not be threatening.

Achieving higher board effectiveness has to be intentional by all directors, individually and collectively as a board, beyond check lists and formal systematic processes. Without a conscious intention, a board will not raise the bar of its effectiveness to the level where it can and should operate. While maintaining independence, the board has to be cognisant of the importance of not assuming anything at any time, not overlooking the need to coalesce on priorities, calibrating and stepping back afresh each time it works together, being in alignment on strategic priorities and refreshing leadership as needed.

Directors can’t afford to underestimate the cultural and values tone they are establishing with their CEO. The board has to pause and ask itself every time it gathers if it is as effective as it should be.

_________________________________________

*Johanne Bouchard est consultante auprès de conseils d’administration, de chefs de la direction et de comités de direction. Johanne a développé une expertise au niveau de la dynamique et de la composition de conseils d’administration. Après l’obtention de son diplôme d’ingénieure en informatique, sa carrière l’a menée à œuvrer dans tous les domaines du secteur de la technologie, du marketing et de la stratégie à l’échelle mondiale.

La relève dans une entreprise familiale | Une possibilité de conflits de rôles !

Voici un cas de gouvernance publié sur le site de Julie Garland McLellan* qui concerne les relations entre la présidente du conseil et sa fille nouvellement nommée comme CEO de cette entreprise privée de taille moyenne.

Le cas illustre le processus de transition familiale et les efforts à exercer afin de ne pas interférer avec les affaires de l’entreprise.

Il s’agit d’un cas très fréquent dans les entreprises familiales. Comment Hannah peut-elle continuer à faire profiter sa fille de ses conseils tout en s’assurant de ne pas empiéter sur ses responsabilités ?

Le cas présente la situation de manière assez succincte, mais explicite ; puis, trois experts en gouvernance se prononcent sur le dilemme qui se présente aux personnes qui vivent des situations similaires.

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont toujours les bienvenus.

Cas de relève familiale

Hannah prepared for the transition. She did a course of director education and understands her duties as a non-executive. She loves her daughter, trusts her judgement as CEO and genuinely wants to see her succeed. Nothing is going wrong but Hannah can’t help interfering. She is bored and longs for the days when she could visit customers or sit and strategise with her management team.

Once a week she has a formal meeting with the CEO in her office. In between times she is in frequent contact. Although by mutual agreement these contacts should be purely social or family oriented Hannah finds herself talking business and is hurt when her daughter suggests they leave it for the weekly meeting or put it onto the board agenda.

Over the past few months Hannah has improved governance, record-keeping, training and succession planning systems but she is running out of projects she can do without undermining her daughter. She also recognises that, as a medium sized unlisted business, the company does not need any more governance structures.

How can Hannah find fulfilment in her new role?

Paul’s Answer …..

Julie’s Answer ….

Jakob’s Answer ….

*Julie Garland McLellan is a practising non-executive director and board consultant based in Sydney, Australia.

Comment procéder à l’évaluation du CA, des comités et des administrateurs | Un sujet d’actualité

Les conseils d’administration sont de plus en plus confrontés à l’exigence d’évaluer l’efficacité de leur fonctionnement par le biais d’une évaluation annuelle du CA, des comités et des administrateurs.

En fait, le NYSE exige depuis dix ans que les conseils procèdent à leur évaluation et que les résultats du processus soient divulgués aux actionnaires. Également, les investisseurs institutionnels et les activistes demandent de plus en plus d’informations au sujet du processus d’évaluation.

Les résultats de l’évaluation peuvent être divulgués de plusieurs façons, notamment dans les circulaires de procuration et sur le site de l’entreprise.

L’article publié par John Olson, associé fondateur de la firme Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, professeur invité à Georgetown Law Center, et paru sur le forum du Harvard Law School, présente certaines approches fréquemment utilisées pour l’évaluation du CA, des comités et des administrateurs.

On recommande de modifier les méthodes et les paramètres de l’évaluation à chaque trois ans afin d’éviter la routine susceptible de s’installer si les administrateurs remplissent les mêmes questionnaires, gérés par le président du conseil. De plus, l’objectif de l’évaluation est sujet à changement (par exemple, depuis une décennie, on accorde une grande place à la cybersécurité).

C’est au comité de gouvernance que revient la supervision du processus d’évaluation du conseil d’administration. L’article décrit quatre méthodes fréquemment utilisées.

(1) Les questionnaires gérés par le comité de gouvernance ou une personne externe

(2) les discussions entre administrateurs sur des sujets déterminés à l’avance

(3) les entretiens individuels avec les administrateurs sur des thèmes précis par le président du conseil, le président du comité de gouvernance ou un expert externe.

(4) L’évaluation des contributions de chaque administrateur par la méthode d’auto-évaluation et par l’évaluation des pairs.

Chaque approche a ses particularités et la clé est de varier les façons de faire périodiquement. On constate également que beaucoup de sociétés cotées utilisent les services de spécialistes pour les aider dans leurs démarches.

La quasi-totalité des entreprises du S&P 500 divulgue le processus d’évaluation utilisé pour améliorer leur efficacité. L’article présente deux manières de diffuser les résultats du processus d’évaluation.

(1) Structuré, c’est-à-dire un format qui précise — qui évalue quoi ; la fréquence de l’évaluation ; qui supervise les résultats ; comment le CA a-t-il agi eu égard aux résultats de l’opération d’évaluation.

(2) Information axée sur les résultats — les grandes conclusions ; les facteurs positifs et les points à améliorer ; un plan d’action visant à corriger les lacunes observées.

Notons que la firme de services aux actionnaires ISS (Institutional Shareholder Services) utilise la qualité du processus d’évaluation pour évaluer la robustesse de la gouvernance des sociétés. L’article présente des recommandations très utiles pour toute personne intéressée par la mise en place d’un système d’évaluation du CA et par sa gestion.

Voici trois articles parus sur mon blogue qui abordent le sujet de l’évaluation :

L’évaluation des conseils d’administration et des administrateurs | Sept étapes à considérer

Quels sont les devoirs et les responsabilités d’un CA ? (la section qui traite des questionnaires d’évaluation du rendement et de la performance du conseil)

Évaluation des membres de Conseils

Bonne lecture !

Getting the Most from the Evaluation Process

More than ten years have passed since the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) began requiring annual evaluations for boards of directors and “key” committees (audit, compensation, nominating/governance), and many NASDAQ companies also conduct these evaluations annually as a matter of good governance. [1] With boards now firmly in the routine of doing annual evaluations, one challenge (as with any recurring activity) is to keep the process fresh and productive so that it continues to provide the board with valuable insights. In addition, companies are increasingly providing, and institutional shareholders are increasingly seeking, more information about the board’s evaluation process. Boards that have implemented a substantive, effective evaluation process will want information about their work in this area to be communicated to shareholders and potential investors. This can be done in a variety of ways, including in the annual proxy statement, in the governance or investor information section on the corporate website, and/or as part of shareholder engagement outreach.

To assist companies and their boards in maximizing the effectiveness of the evaluation process and related disclosures, this post provides an overview of several frequently used methods for conducting evaluations of the full board, board committees and individual directors. It is our experience that using a variety of methods, with some variation from year to year, results in more substantive and useful evaluations. This post also discusses trends and considerations relating to disclosures about board evaluations. We close with some practical tips for boards to consider as they look ahead to their next annual evaluation cycle.

Common Methods of Board Evaluation

As a threshold matter, it is important to note that there is no one “right” way to conduct board evaluations. There is room for flexibility, and the boards and committees we work with use a variety of methods. We believe it is good practice to “change up” the board evaluation process every few years by using a different format in order to keep the process fresh. Boards have increasingly found that year-after-year use of a written questionnaire, with the results compiled and summarized by a board leader or the corporate secretary for consideration by the board, becomes a routine exercise that produces few new insights as the years go by. This has been the most common practice, and it does respond to the NYSE requirement, but it may not bring as much useful information to the board as some other methods.

Doing something different from time to time can bring new perspectives and insights, enhancing the effectiveness of the process and the value it provides to the board. The evaluation process should be dynamic, changing from time to time as the board identifies practices that work well and those that it finds less effective, and as the board deals with changing expectations for how to meet its oversight duties. As an example, over the last decade there have been increasing expectations that boards will be proactive in oversight of compliance issues and risk (including cyber risk) identification and management issues.

Three of the most common methods for conducting a board or committee evaluation are: (1) written questionnaires; (2) discussions; and (3) interviews. Some of the approaches outlined below reflect a combination of these methods. A company’s nominating/governance committee typically oversees the evaluation process since it has primary responsibility for overseeing governance matters on behalf of the board.

1. Questionnaires

The most common method for conducting board evaluations has been through written responses to questionnaires that elicit information about the board’s effectiveness. The questionnaires may be prepared with the assistance of outside counsel or an outside advisor with expertise in governance matters. A well-designed questionnaire often will address a combination of substantive topics and topics relating to the board’s operations. For example, the questionnaire could touch on major subject matter areas that fall under the board’s oversight responsibility, such as views on whether the board’s oversight of critical areas like risk, compliance and crisis preparedness are effective, including whether there is appropriate and timely information flow to the board on these issues. Questionnaires typically also inquire about whether board refreshment mechanisms and board succession planning are effective, and whether the board is comfortable with the senior management succession plan. With respect to board operations, a questionnaire could inquire about matters such as the number and frequency of meetings, quality and timeliness of meeting materials, and allocation of meeting time between presentation and discussion. Some boards also consider their efforts to increase board diversity as part of the annual evaluation process.

Many boards review their questionnaires annually and update them as appropriate to address new, relevant topics or to emphasize particular areas. For example, if the board recently changed its leadership structure or reallocated responsibility for a major subject matter area among its committees, or the company acquired or started a new line of business or experienced recent issues related to operations, legal compliance or a breach of security, the questionnaire should be updated to request feedback on how the board has handled these developments. Generally, each director completes the questionnaire, the results of the questionnaires are consolidated, and a written or verbal summary of the results is then shared with the board.

Written questionnaires offer the advantage of anonymity because responses generally are summarized or reported back to the full board without attribution. As a result, directors may be more candid in their responses than they would be using another evaluation format, such as a face-to-face discussion. A potential disadvantage of written questionnaires is that they may become rote, particularly after several years of using the same or substantially similar questionnaires. Further, the final product the board receives may be a summary that does not pick up the nuances or tone of the views of individual directors.

In our experience, increasingly, at least once every few years, boards that use questionnaires are retaining a third party, such as outside counsel or another experienced facilitator, to compile the questionnaire responses, prepare a summary and moderate a discussion based on the questionnaire responses. The desirability of using an outside party for this purpose depends on a number of factors. These include the culture of the board and, specifically, whether the boardroom environment is one in which directors are comfortable expressing their views candidly. In addition, using counsel (inside or outside) may help preserve any argument that the evaluation process and related materials are privileged communications if, during the process, counsel is providing legal advice to the board.

In lieu of asking directors to complete written questionnaires, a questionnaire could be distributed to stimulate and guide discussion at an interactive full board evaluation discussion.

2. Group Discussions

Setting aside board time for a structured, in-person conversation is another common method for conducting board evaluations. The discussion can be led by one of several individuals, including: (a) the chairman of the board; (b) an independent director, such as the lead director or the chair of the nominating/governance committee; or (c) an outside facilitator, such as a lawyer or consultant with expertise in governance matters. Using a discussion format can help to “change up” the evaluation process in situations where written questionnaires are no longer providing useful, new information. It may also work well if there are particular concerns about creating a written record.

Boards that use a discussion format often circulate a list of discussion items or topics for directors to consider in advance of the meeting at which the discussion will occur. This helps to focus the conversation and make the best use of the time available. It also provides an opportunity to develop a set of topics that is tailored to the company, its business and issues it has faced and is facing. Another approach to determining discussion topics is to elicit directors’ views on what should be covered as part of the annual evaluation. For example, the nominating/governance could ask that each director select a handful of possible topics for discussion at the board evaluation session and then place the most commonly cited topics on the agenda for the evaluation.

A discussion format can be a useful tool for facilitating a candid exchange of views among directors and promoting meaningful dialogue, which can be valuable in assessing effectiveness and identifying areas for improvement. Discussions allow directors to elaborate on their views in ways that may not be feasible with a written questionnaire and to respond in real time to views expressed by their colleagues on the board. On the other hand, they do not provide an opportunity for anonymity. In our experience, this approach works best in boards with a high degree of collegiality and a tradition of candor.

3. Interviews

Another method of conducting board evaluations that is becoming more common is interviews with individual directors, done in-person or over the phone. A set of questions is often distributed in advance to help guide the discussion. Interviews can be done by: (a) an outside party such as a lawyer or consultant; (b) an independent director, such as the lead director or the chair of the nominating/governance committee; or (c) the corporate secretary or inside counsel, if directors are comfortable with that. The party conducting the interviews generally summarizes the information obtained in the interview process and may facilitate a discussion of the information obtained with the board.

In our experience, boards that have used interviews to conduct their annual evaluation process generally have found them very productive. Directors have observed that the interviews yielded rich feedback about the board’s performance and effectiveness. Relative to other types of evaluations, interviews are more labor-intensive because they can be time-consuming, particularly for larger boards. They also can be expensive, particularly if the board retains an outside party to conduct the interviews. For these reasons, the interview format generally is not one that is used every year. However, we do see a growing number of boards taking this path as a “refresher”—every three to five years—after periods of using a written questionnaire, or after a major event, such as a corporate crisis of some kind, when the board wants to do an in-depth “lessons learned” analysis as part of its self-evaluation. Interviews also offer an opportunity to develop a targeted list of questions that focuses on issues and themes that are specific to the board and company in question, which can contribute further to the value derived from the interview process.

For nominating/governance committees considering the use of an interview format, one key question is who will conduct the interviews. In our experience, the most common approach is to retain an outside party (such as a lawyer or consultant) to conduct and summarize interviews. An outside party can enhance the effectiveness of the process because directors may be more forthcoming in their responses than they would if another director or a member of management were involved.

Individual Director Evaluations

Another practice that some boards have incorporated into their evaluation process is formal evaluations of individual directors. In our experience, these are not yet widespread but are becoming more common. At companies where the nominating/governance committee has a robust process for assessing the contributions of individual directors each year in deciding whether to recommend them for renomination to the board, the committee and the board may conclude that a formal evaluation every year is unnecessary. Historically, some boards have been hesitant to conduct individual director evaluations because of concerns about the impact on board collegiality and dynamics. However, if done thoughtfully, a structured process for evaluating the performance of each director can result in valuable insights that can strengthen the performance of individual directors and the board as a whole.

As with board and committee evaluations, no single “best practice” has emerged for conducting individual director evaluations, and the methods described above can be adapted for this purpose. In addition, these evaluations may involve directors either evaluating their own performance (self-evaluations), or evaluating their fellow directors individually and as a group (peer evaluations). Directors may be more willing to evaluate their own performance than that of their colleagues, and the utility of self-evaluations can be enhanced by having an independent director, such as the chairman of the board or lead director, or the chair of the nominating/governance committee, provide feedback to each director after the director evaluates his or her own performance. On the other hand, peer evaluations can provide directors with valuable, constructive comments. Here, too, each director’s evaluation results typically would be presented only to that director by the chairman of the board or lead director, or the chair of the nominating/governance committee. Ultimately, whether and how to conduct individual director evaluations will depend on a variety of factors, including board culture.

Disclosures about Board Evaluations

Many companies discuss the board evaluation process in their corporate governance guidelines. [2] In addition, many companies now provide disclosure about the evaluation process in the proxy statement, as one element of increasingly robust proxy disclosures about their corporate governance practices. According to the 2015 Spencer Stuart Board Index, all but 2% of S&P 500 companies disclose in their proxy statements, at a minimum, that they conduct some form of annual board evaluation.

In addition, institutional shareholders increasingly are expressing an interest in knowing more about the evaluation process at companies where they invest. In particular, they want to understand whether the board’s process is a meaningful one, with actionable items emerging from the evaluation process, and not a “check the box” exercise. In the United Kingdom, companies must report annually on their processes for evaluating the performance of the board, its committees and individual directors under the UK Corporate Governance Code. As part of the code’s “comply or explain approach,” the largest companies are expected to use an external facilitator at least every three years (or explain why they have not done so) and to disclose the identity of the facilitator and whether he or she has any other connection to the company.

In September 2014, the Council of Institutional Investors issued a report entitled Best Disclosure: Board Evaluation (available here), as part of a series of reports aimed at providing investors and companies with approaches to and examples of disclosures that CII considers exemplary. The report recommended two possible approaches to enhanced disclosure about board evaluations, identified through an informal survey of CII members, and included examples of disclosures illustrating each approach. As a threshold matter, CII acknowledged in the report that shareholders generally do not expect details about evaluations of individual directors. Rather, shareholders “want to understand the process by which the board goes about regularly improving itself.” According to CII, detailed disclosure about the board evaluation process can give shareholders a “window” into the boardroom and the board’s capacity for change.

The first approach in the CII report focuses on the “nuts and bolts” of how the board conducts the evaluation process and analyzes the results. Under this approach, a company’s disclosures would address: (1) who evaluates whom; (2) how often the evaluations are done; (3) who reviews the results; and (4) how the board decides to address the results. Disclosures under this approach do not address feedback from specific evaluations, either individually or more generally, or conclusions that the board has drawn from recent self-evaluations. As a result, according to CII, this approach can take the form of “evergreen” proxy disclosure that remains similar from year to year, unless the evaluation process itself changes.

The second approach focuses more on the board’s most recent evaluation. Under this approach, in addition to addressing the evaluation process, a company’s disclosures would provide information about “big-picture, board-wide findings and any steps for tackling areas identified for improvement” during the board’s last evaluation. The disclosures would identify: (1) key takeaways from the board’s review of its own performance, including both areas where the board believes it functions effectively and where it could improve; and (2) a “plan of action” to address areas for improvement over the coming year. According to CII, this type of disclosure is more common in the United Kingdom and other non-U.S. jurisdictions.

Also reflecting a greater emphasis on disclosure about board evaluations, proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”) added this subject to the factors it uses in evaluating companies’ governance practices when it released an updated version of “QuickScore,” its corporate governance benchmarking tool, in Fall 2014. QuickScore views a company as having a “robust” board evaluation policy where the board discloses that it conducts an annual performance evaluation, including evaluations of individual directors, and that it uses an external evaluator at least every three years (consistent with the approach taken in the UK Corporate Governance Code). For individual director evaluations, it appears that companies can receive QuickScore “credit” in this regard where the nominating/governance committee assesses director performance in connection with the renomination process.

What Companies Should Do Now

As noted above, there is no “one size fits all” approach to board evaluations, but the process should be viewed as an opportunity to enhance board, committee and director performance. In this regard, a company’s nominating/governance committee and board should periodically assess the evaluation process itself to determine whether it is resulting in meaningful takeaways, and whether changes are appropriate. This includes considering whether the board would benefit from trying new approaches to the evaluation process every few years.

Factors to consider in deciding what evaluation format to use include any specific objectives the board seeks to achieve through the evaluation process, aspects of the current evaluation process that have worked well, the board’s culture, and any concerns directors may have about confidentiality. And, we believe that every board should carefully consider “changing up” the evaluation process used from time to time so that the exercise does not become rote. What will be the most beneficial in any given year will depend on a variety of factors specific to the board and the company. For the board, this includes considerations of board refreshment and tenure, and developments the board may be facing, such as changes in board or committee leadership. Factors relevant to the company include where the company is in its lifecycle, whether the company is in a period of relative stability, challenge or transformation, whether there has been a significant change in the company’s business or a senior management change, whether there is activist interest in the company and whether the company has recently gone through or is going through a crisis of some kind. Specific items that nominating/governance committees could consider as part of maintaining an effective evaluation process include:

Revisit the content and focus of written questionnaires. Evaluation questionnaires should be updated each time they are used in order to reflect significant new developments, both in the external environment and internal to the board.

“Change it up.” If the board has been using the same written questionnaire, or the same evaluation format, for several years, consider trying something new for an upcoming annual evaluation. This can bring renewed vigor to the process, reengage the participants, and result in more meaningful feedback.

Consider whether to bring in an external facilitator. Boards that have not previously used an outside party to assist in their evaluations should consider whether this would enhance the candor and overall effectiveness of the process.

Engage in a meaningful discussion of the evaluation results. Unless the board does its evaluation using a discussion format, there should be time on the board’s agenda to discuss the evaluation results so that all directors have an opportunity to hear and discuss the feedback from the evaluation.

Incorporate follow-up into the process. Regardless of the evaluation method used, it is critical to follow up on issues and concerns that emerge from the evaluation process. The process should include identifying concrete takeaways and formulating action items to address any concerns or areas for improvement that emerge from the evaluation. Senior management can be a valuable partner in this endeavor, and should be briefed as appropriate on conclusions reached as a result of the evaluation and related action items. The board also should consider its progress in addressing these items.

Revisit disclosures. Working with management, the nominating/governance committee and the board should discuss whether the company’s proxy disclosures, investor and governance website information and other communications to shareholders and potential investors contain meaningful, current information about the board evaluation process.

Endnotes:

[1] See NYSE Rule 303A.09, which requires listed companies to adopt and disclose a set of corporate governance guidelines that must address an annual performance evaluation of the board. The rule goes on to state that “[t]he board should conduct a self-evaluation at least annually to determine whether it and its committees are functioning effectively.” See also NYSE Rules 303A.07(b)(ii), 303A.05(b)(ii) and 303A.04(b)(ii) (requiring annual evaluations of the audit, compensation, and nominating/governance committees, respectively).
(go back)

[2] In addition, as discussed in the previous note, NYSE companies are required to address an annual evaluation of the board in their corporate governance guidelines.
(go back)

______________________________

*John Olson is a founding partner of the Washington, D.C. office at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and a visiting professor at the Georgetown Law Center.

La composition du conseil d’administration | Élément clé d’une saine gouvernance

Les investisseurs et les actionnaires reconnaissent le rôle prioritaire que les administrateurs de sociétés jouent dans la gouvernance et, conséquemment, ils veulent toujours plus d’informations sur le processus de nomination des administrateurs et sur la composition du conseil d’administration.

L’article qui suit, paru sur le Forum du Harvard Law School, a été publié par Paula Loop, directrice du centre de la gouvernance de PricewaterhouseCoopers. Il s’agit essentiellement d’un compte rendu sur l’évolution des facteurs clés de la composition des conseils d’administration. La présentation s’appuie sur une infographie remarquable.

Ainsi, on apprend que 41 % des campagnes menées par les activistes étaient reliées à la composition des CA, et que 20 % des CA ont modifié leur composition en réponse aux activités réelles ou potentielles des activistes.

L’article s’attarde sur la grille de composition des conseils relative aux compétences et habiletés requises. Également, on présente les arguments pour une plus grande diversité des CA et l’on s’interroge sur la situation actuelle.

Enfin, l’article revient sur les questions du nombre de mandats des administrateurs et de l’âge de la retraite de ceux-ci ainsi que sur les préoccupations des investisseurs eu égard au renouvellement et au rajeunissement des CA.

Le travail de renouvellement du conseil ne peut se faire sans la mise en place d’un processus d’évaluation complet du fonctionnement du CA et des administrateurs.

À mon avis, c’est certainement un article à lire pour bien comprendre toutes les problématiques reliées à la composition des conseils d’administration.

Bonne lecture !

Investors and Board Composition

In today’s business environment, companies face numerous challenges that can impact success—from emerging technologies to changing regulatory requirements and cybersecurity concerns. As a result, the expertise, experience, and diversity of perspective in the boardroom play a more critical role than ever in ensuring effective oversight. At the same time, many investors and other stakeholders are seeking influence on board composition. They want more information about a company’s director nominees. They also want to know that boards and their nominating and governance committees are appropriately considering director tenure, board diversity and the results of board self-evaluations when making director nominations. All of this is occurring within an environment of aggressive shareholder activism, in which board composition often becomes a central focus.

Shareholder activism and board composition

At the same time, a growing number of companies are adopting proxy access rules—allowing shareholders that meet certain ownership criteria to submit a limited number of director candidates for inclusion on the company’s annual proxy. It has become a top governance issue over the last two years, with many shareholders viewing it as a step forward for shareholder rights. And it’s another factor causing boards to focus more on their makeup.

So within this context, how should directors and investors be thinking about board composition, and what steps should be taken to ensure boards are adequately refreshing themselves?

Assessing what you have–and what you need

In a rapidly changing business climate, a high-performing board requires agile directors who can grasp concepts quickly. Directors need to be fiercely independent thinkers who consciously avoid groupthink and are able to challenge management—while still contributing to a productive and collegial boardroom environment. A strong board includes directors with different backgrounds, and individuals who understand how the company’s strategy is impacted by emerging economic and technological trends.

Sample board composition grid: What skills and attributes does your board need?

In assessing their composition, boards and their nominating and governance committees need to think critically about what skills and attributes the board currently has, and how they tie to oversight of the company. As companies’ strategies change and their business models evolve, it is imperative that board composition be evaluated regularly to ensure that the right mix of skills are present to meet the company’s current needs. Many boards conduct a gap analysis that compares current director attributes with those that it has identified as critical to effective oversight. They can then choose to fill any gaps by recruiting new directors with such attributes or by consulting external advisors. Some companies use a matrix in their proxy disclosures to graphically display to investors the particular attributes of each director nominee.

Board diversity is a hot-button issue

Diversity is a key element of any discussion of board composition. Diversity includes not only gender, race, and ethnicity, but also diversity of skills, backgrounds, personalities, opinions, and experiences. But the pace of adding more gender and ethnic diversity to public company boards has been only incremental over the past five years. For example, a December 2015 report from the US Government Accountability Office estimates that it could take four decades for the representation of women on US boards to be the same as men. [1] Some countries, including Norway, Belgium, and Italy, have implemented regulatory quotas to increase the percentage of women on boards.

Even if equal proportions of women and men joined boards each year beginning in 2015, GAO estimated that it could take more than four decades for women’s representation on boards to be on par with that of men’s.
—US Government Accountability Office, December 2015

According to PwC’s 2015 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, more than 80% of directors believe board diversity positively impacts board and company performance. But more than 70% of directors say there are impediments to increasing board diversity. [2] One of the main impediments is that many boards look to current or former CEOs as potential director candidates. However, only 4% of S&P 500 CEOs are female, [3] less than 2% of the Fortune 500 CEOs are Hispanic or Asian, and only 1% of the Fortune 500 CEOs are African-American. [4] So in order to get boards to be more diverse, the pool of potential director candidates needs to be expanded.

Is there diversity on US boards?

Source: Spencer Stuart US Board Index 2015, November 2015.

SEC rules require companies to disclose the backgrounds and qualifications of director nominees and whether diversity was a nomination consideration. In January 2016, SEC Chair Mary Jo White included diversity as a priority for the SEC’s 2016 agenda and suggested that the SEC’s disclosure rules pertaining to board diversity may be enhanced.

While those who aspire to become directors must play their part, the drive to make diversity a priority really has to come from board leadership: CEOs, lead directors, board chairs, and nominating and governance committee chairs. These leaders need to be proactive and commit to making diversity part of the company and board culture. In order to find more diverse candidates, boards will have to look in different places. There are often many untapped, highly qualified, and diverse candidates just a few steps below the C-suite, people who drive strategies, run large segments of the business, and function like CEOs.

How long is too long? Director tenure and mandatory retirement

The debate over board tenure centers on whether lengthy board service negatively impacts director independence, objectivity, and performance. Some investors believe that long-serving directors can become complacent over time—making it less likely that they will challenge management. However, others question the virtue of forced board turnover. They argue that with greater tenure comes good working relationships with stakeholders and a deep knowledge of the company. One approach to this issue is to strive for diversity of board tenure—consciously balancing the board’s composition to include new directors, those with medium tenures, and those with long-term service.

This debate has heated up in recent years, due in part to attention from the Council of Institutional Investors (the Council). In 2013, the Council introduced a revised policy statement on board tenure. While the policy “does not endorse a term limit,” [5] the Council noted that directors with extended tenures should no longer be considered independent. More recently, the large pension fund CalPERS has been vocal about tenure, stating that extended board service could impede objectivity. CalPERS updated its 2016 proxy voting guidelines by asking companies to explain why directors serving for over twelve years should still be considered independent.

We believe director independence can be compromised at 12 years of service—in these situations a company should carry out rigorous evaluations to either classify the director as non-independent or provide a detailed annual explanation of why the director can continue to be classified as independent.
— CalPERS Global Governance Principles, second reading, March 14, 2016

Factors in the director tenure and age debate

Source: Spencer Stuart US Board Index 2015, November 2015.

Many boards have a mandatory retirement age for their directors. However, the average mandatory retirement age has increased in recent years. Of the 73% of S&P 500 boards that have a mandatory retirement age in place, 97% set that age at 72 or older—up from 57% that did so ten years ago. Thirty-four percent set it at 75 or older. [6] Others believe that director term limits may be a better way to encourage board refreshment, but only 3% of S&P 500 boards have such policies. [7]

Investor concern

Some institutional investors have expressed concern about board composition and refreshment, and this increased scrutiny could have an impact on proxy voting decisions.

What are investors saying about board composition and refreshment?

Sources: BlackRock, Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities, February 2015; California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Statement of Investment Policy for Global Governance, March 16, 2015; State Street Global Advisors’ US Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines, March 2015.

Proxy advisors’ views on board composition—recent developments

Proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services’s (ISS) governance rating system QuickScore 3.0 views tenure of more than nine years as potentially compromising director independence. ISS’s 2016 voting policy updates include a clarification that a “small number” of long-tenured directors (those with more than nine years of board service) does not negatively impact the company’s QuickScore governance rating, though ISS does not provide specifics on the acceptable quantity.

Glass Lewis’ updated 2016 voting policies address nominating committee performance. Glass Lewis may now recommend against the nominating and governance committee chair “where the board’s failure to ensure the board has directors with relevant experience, either through periodic director assessment or board refreshment, has contributed to a company’s poor performance.” Glass Lewis believes that shareholders are best served when boards are diverse on the basis of age, race, gender and ethnicity, as well as on the basis of geographic knowledge, industry experience, board tenure, and culture.

How can directors proactively address board refreshment?

The first step in refreshing your board is deciding whether to add a new board member and determining which director attributes are most important. One way to do this is to conduct a self-assessment. Directors also have a number of mechanisms to address board refreshment. For one, boards can consider new ways of recruiting director candidates. They can take charge of their composition through active and strategic succession planning. And they can also use robust self-assessments to gauge individual director performance—and replace directors who are no longer contributing.

Act on the results of board assessments. Boards should use their annual self-assessment to help spark discussions about board refreshment. Having a robust board assessment process can offer insights into how the board is functioning and how individual directors are performing. The board can use this process to identify directors that may be underperforming or whose skills may no longer match what the company needs. It’s incumbent upon the board chair or lead director and the chair of the nominating and governance committee to address any difficult matters that may arise out of the assessment process, including having challenging conversations with underperforming directors. In addition, some investors are asking about the results of board assessments. CalPERS and CalSTRS have both called on boards to disclose more information about the impact of their self-assessments on board composition decisions. [8]

Take a strategic approach to director succession planning. Director succession planning is essential to promoting board refreshment. But, less than half of directors “very much” believe their board is spending enough time on director succession. [9] In board succession planning, it’s important to think about the current state of the board, the tenure of current members, and the company’s future needs. Boards should identify possible director candidates based upon anticipated turnover and director retirements.

Broaden the pool of candidates. Often, boards recruit directors by soliciting recommendations from other sitting directors, which can be a small pool. Forward-looking boards expand the universe of potential qualified candidates by looking outside of the C-suite, considering investor recommendations, and by looking for candidates outside the corporate world—from the retired military, academia, and large non-profits. This will provide a broader pool of individuals with more diverse backgrounds who can be great board contributors.

In sum, evaluating board composition and refreshing the board may be challenging at times, but it’s increasingly a topic of concern for many investors, and it’s critical to the board’s ability to stay current, effective, and focused on enhancing long-term shareholder value.

The complete publication, including footnotes and appendix, is available here.

Endnotes:

[1] United States Government Accountability Office, “Corporate Boards: Strategies to Address Representation of Women Include Federal Disclosure Requirements,” December 2015.
(go back)

[2] PwC, 2015 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, October 2015.
(go back)

[3] Catalyst, Women CEOs of the S&P 500, February 3, 2016.
(go back)

[4] “McDonald’s CEO to Retire; Black Fortune 500 CEOs Decline by 33% in Past Year,” DiversityInc, January 29, 2015; http://www.diversityinc.com/leadership/mcdonalds-ceo-retire-black-fortune-500-ceos-decline-33-past-year.
(go back)

[5] Amy Borrus, “More on CII’s New Policies on Universal Proxies and Board Tenure,” Council of Institutional Investors, October 1, 2013; http://www.cii.org/article_content.asp?article=208.
(go back)

[6] Spencer Stuart, 2015 US Board Index, November 2015.
(go back)

[7] Spencer Stuart, 2015 US Board Index, November 2015.
(go back)

[8] California State Teachers’ Retirement System Corporate Governance Principles, April 3, 2015, http://www.calstrs.com/sites/main/files/file-attachments/corporate_governance_principles_1.pdf; The California Public Employees’ Retirement System Global Governance Principles, Updated March 14, 2016, https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/board-agendas/201603/invest/item05a-02.pdf.
(go back)

[9] PwC, 2015 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, October 2015. www.pwc.com/us/GovernanceInsightsCenter.

________________________________

*Paula Loop is Leader of the Governance Insights Center at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on a PwC publication by Ms. Loop and Paul DeNicola. The complete publication, including footnotes and appendix, is available here.

Un guide utile pour bien évaluer les risques organisationnels | En reprise

Voici un article très intéressant sur l’évaluation des risques publié par H. Glen Jenkins* et paru dans Inside Counsel (IC) Magazine.

Il s’agit d’un bref exposé sur la notion de risques organisationnels et sur les principaux éléments qu’il faut considérer afin d’en faire une gestion efficace.

Je vous invite à prendre connaissance des autres publications sur le site de IC, notamment Evaluating and managing litigation risk.

Bonne lecture !

Risk assessment: A primer for corporate counsel

The scope of legal responsibilities for in-house counsel varies depending on the size and complexity of the company. For instance, an attorney located at corporate headquarters could be chiefly responsible for issues affecting the shared services that are available and used by corporate headquarters, as well as every business unit and division. And yet at other times, in-house counsel’s concerns may be restricted to matters affecting only the parent company or a specific liability issue faced by only one business unit.

In each instance, however, in-house counsel are generally concerned with specific legal tasks and proactive risk management.

What exactly does risk management mean, and what does it encompass? Furthermore, once the definition of risk management has been established and accepted by the company’s management team, how can in-house counsel efficiently and comprehensively assess all possible risks?

Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines risk as “the possibility that something bad or unpleasant will happen.” Whenever many of us in the accounting and legal profession hear the word “risk,” we inherently may succumb to the aforementioned particular negative connotation of risk. How many times have we heard the phrase, “Risk is a part of life,’ and how often have we associated those five words with an undesirable implication?”

Alternatively, A Positive View of Risk

Taking risks does not always have to be painstakingly negative. It is unlikely that many will disagree with the Institute of Risk Management’s (IRM) assertion that “avoiding all risk would result in no achievement, no progress and no reward.” This statement undoubtedly portrays a different perspective of risk, indicating the potential of a positive outcome.

IRM goes on to define risk as “the combination of the probability of an event and its consequence. Consequences can range from positive and negative.”

Therein lies the basic premise of risk management. If the consequences of risk can be both positive and negative, it would seem only prudent to try and effectively manage risk to have the highest probability of a positive outcome.

Applying IRM’s definition of risk, together with the premise that avoiding all risk would result in no achievement, no progress and no reward, we intrinsically recognize that not all risks are bad and not all risks are to be avoided.

Over the course of three successive articles on risk, we will take a closer look at how in-house counsel works with internal and external resources to help identify, evaluate and categorize risk.

Risk Assessment: The Starting Point for Successful Risk Management

Risk assessment is the identification, analysis and evaluation of risks involved in a given situation. Risk assessment also implies a comparison against benchmarks or standards, and the determination of an acceptable level of risk. The evaluation of risks should also provide management with a remediation or control for the identified hazard.

The word “risk” alone without any context is a vague and ill-defined term. There is safety risk, country risk, political risk, health risk and the ongoing list is virtually boundless and it is next to impossible to comprehensively assess all possible risks.

According to Tori Silas, privacy officer and senior counsel with Cox Enterprises, Inc., Cox uses the external resources of multinational accounting and advisory companies to assist with its risk assessments. Using best practices they have developed by analyzing business processes and assessing risk for companies on a global level, these organizations assist in the identification of risks in particular areas of the business, and provide a framework within which to rate risks and prioritize remediation efforts associated with those risks.

Assessment Begins with Knowing Who Decides Acceptable Levels of Risk

As an example of financial risk, according to a Tulane University study, the chances of getting hit by an asteroid or comet are 1,000 times greater than winning a jackpot mega millions lottery. Yet, some have accepted that level of risk and will habitually trade their money to play the lottery rather than investing their money or capital in an endeavor that has a much higher probability of building wealth. Whether right or wrong, a good or bad decision, those who make the choice of playing the lottery have intrinsically accepted the financial risk of losing their money in lieu of the near impossible odds to reap a grand reward.

No matter our opinion of playing the lottery, I think we would all agree that it would be highly unlikely to find a pragmatic business executive allotting some portion the company’s wealth and assets to invest in lottery tickets. But why not? Who decides the parameters of acceptable levels of risk for a business and against what benchmarks are those decisions made?

The business owners, board of directors and executive management define the business objectives, and establish the risk appetite and risk tolerances that are to be contemplated on an overall basis by management when making decisions and evaluating options and alternatives. Together they establish a system of rules, practices and processes by which their company is directed and controlled. This concept is often referred to as corporate governance. Businesses of all sizes embrace this concept, but small businesses may cloak this concept within the singular frame of mind of its ownership’s values, ideologies, philosophies, beliefs and individual business principles.

As the privacy officer for Cox Enterprises, Silas strives to make certain the employees of their consumer facing companies are aware of Cox’s obligations regarding data privacy and that they are appropriately trained to identify and mitigate risk related to and to protect any private consumer data they may have collected.

Corporate Governance

Since the purpose of a risk assessment is the identification, analysis, and evaluation of risks that could adversely impact the business meeting its objectives, the process of conducting a risk assessment should be integrated into existing management processes. According to Silas, Cox Enterprises also utilizes its own internal audit services department to examine functional processes and identify opportunities to strengthen controls and mitigate risks. It is recommended that risk assessments should be conducted using a top-down approach beginning with the top level of the company and filtering its way down through each division and business unit.

For example, a company may have three divisions: manufacturing, marketing and finance. Each of those divisions may operate in four global sectors. Using a top-down approach the three top divisions would conduct a risk assessment and each subdivision that is located in each global sector would conduct their own risk assessment. The top-down approach would then be complimented by bottom-up process where the risk assessments are sent up the business chain, gathered and compiled into an integrated risk assessment matrix.

Ten Tips for Conducting an Effective Risk Assessment

In quick summary, here are ten additional tips for conducting an effective risk assessment:

Create, plan and conduct a formal risk assessment;

Define the context and objectives of the risk assessment;

Define and understand the organizations acceptable risk tolerance;

Bring together the best team to conduct the risk assessment;

Employ the best risk assessment techniques for the situation;

Understand control measures to mitigate risk;

Be objective and impartial conducting the risk assessment;

Identify the environment that is conducive to risks;

Identify who could be harmed; and

Review, revisit and re-perform the risk assessment.

Séparation des fonctions de président du conseil et de chef de la direction : un 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.

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.

La nouvelle réalité des comités de gouvernance des conseils d’administration | en rappel

Aujourd’hui, je veux partager avec vous certaines considérations cruciales pour un meilleur fonctionnement des comités de gouvernance des conseils d’administration (aussi appelés comités de nomination).

Cet article, publié par Ruby Sharma* et Ann Yerger*, associées au EY Center for Board Matters de la firme Ernst & Young, paru sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (HLSF), montre l’ascension fulgurante des comités de gouvernance. Ce phénomène est attribuable à l’importance accrue accordée à la diversité et à la divulgation, dans un contexte où les investisseurs institutionnels et les fonds activistes sont de plus en plus soucieux de la compétence des administrateurs de sociétés.

Les auteurs montrent toute l’importance qui doit être apportée au travail des comités de gouvernance afin de mieux s’adapter aux changements majeurs qui surviennent dans le monde de la gouvernance.

(1) Les comités de gouvernance doivent faire preuve de plus de divulgation sur la composition du conseil d’administration, sur les qualifications des administrateurs ainsi que sur le mix de leurs compétences, et sur les méthodes d’évaluation des administrateurs afin de montrer comment chacun contribue au CA.

(2) Les comités de gouvernance doivent intégrer les considérations liées à la diversité, à l’expertise, au nombre de mandats ainsi qu’aux questions de planification de la relève.

(3) Enfin, les comités de gouvernance doivent être sensibles au fait que la composition des conseils d’administration influencera de plus en plus le vote des investisseurs (actionnaires) aux assemblées générales annuelles.

Voici un extrait de l’article publié dans HLSF.

Bonne lecture !

Three Things Nominating Committees Need to Know

(1) Evaluate and enhance disclosures about director qualifications, board composition and board assessment processes

Most institutional investors we spoke with (more than 75%) said companies are not doing a good job explaining why they have the right directors on the board. Historically, investor understanding of director qualifications has been limited to basic biographic information in proxy filings representing “to the letter” compliance with the requirement to disclose: “… the particular experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that qualified that person to serve as a director of the company … in light of the company’s business.”

Now, companies are increasingly enhancing their disclosures by explaining more about how each director contributes to the board. Some disclosures go further to describe how the board and its committees, as a whole, have the appropriate mix of skills, expertise and perspectives to oversee the company’s key strategies, challenges and risk management efforts.

Companies are making other efforts to enhance the way they communicate to investors, such as by using graphics, tables and letters to shareholders. Some are exploring the use of videos and other media. And some are looking to other markets such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada for ideas for how to enhance their own disclosures. For example, some companies may explain how new directors complement the existing board, provide specific examples of industry and functional expertise, illustrate how different forms of diversity combine to provide for a more dynamic board, explain how the board’s expertise is enhanced through additional educational opportunities and discuss how the board assessment process is used to further strengthen the board.

When there are questions about company performance, investors are likely to look more closely at board composition, and when there are minimal or no disclosures demonstrating how directors contribute to the company’s strategic goals, investors may question the performance assessment process. For example, they may ask how the evaluation process is structured, how often it’s carried out and how results are addressed. They also may ask about the role of independent board leaders, other stakeholders and/or third parties in the process. They may also question how board candidates are sourced, the board succession planning process and director education practices.

(2) Integrate diversity, expertise and tenure considerations into board composition and succession planning

Nominating committees play the critical role of linking the board’s director recruitment, selection and succession planning processes to the company’s strategic goals. They do this by trying to maintain the best mix of expertise and perspectives in the boardroom to address the ever-changing business environment and oversee the company’s key strategic efforts.

Nominating committees, institutional investors and other governance observers are increasingly weighing additional perspectives in the director selection process, such as diversity (including gender, racial, cultural, geographical, generational diversity), industry knowledge, global perspectives, and expertise in areas such as cybersecurity and environmental sustainability.

An ongoing focus on board composition allows the nominating committee to maintain a balanced mix of fresh insights (from recently appointed directors) with institutional knowledge (from seasoned and longer-tenured directors) and other perspectives in between (based on variations in board tenure). The table below provides some general metrics on board composition, which may be helpful to nominating committees seeking to develop a view about longer-term positioning for their boards.

How does your brand compare?

Summary data S&P 500 S&P 1500 Russell 3000

Average board tenure 10 10 9

Average age 63 63 62

Gender diversity 20% 16% 13%

(3) Growing attention to board composition and quality may influence how investors vote in future director elections

Investors historically have voted against director nominees based on triggers such as poor meeting attendance, excessive board service, executive compensation challenges, independence concerns, perceptions of subpar performance and/or unresponsiveness to shareholders.

Now, institutional investors appear to be moving beyond these traditional metrics for evaluating boards. Increasingly investors are calling out the lack of board diversity as a governance issue in engagement conversations with companies, stewardship reports and proxy voting guidelines —with some investors adopting policies of voting against board nominees when they perceive insufficient diversity, such as too few women and/or minority directors.

New policies by proxy advisory firm Glass Lewis reflect the emerging shift to consider board composition and director qualifications in voting recommendations. For example, beginning in 2016, Glass Lewis, which develops its policies with investor input, will recommend that investors oppose the re-election of a nominating committee chair in the event of poor performance and the chair’s “failure to ensure the board has directors with relevant experience, either through periodic director assessment or board refreshment …”

Where do nominating committees go from here?

Nominating committee members should recognize that these developments are occurring as investor votes are becoming more meaningful, with annually elected boards (versus staggered) and with a majority voting requirement (versus plurality). There also appears to be an emerging trend of targeted voting practices, with investors opposing perceived action or inaction by specific directors and committees. For example, we recently found that companies with low say-on-pay votes saw higher opposition votes directed at compensation committee members.

When directors step off the board, whether as planned or unexpectedly, nominating committees need to reconsider overall board composition, what the departure may mean for the board now and going forward, and how best to communicate these changes to investors. An effective, experienced and diverse board is a strategic asset to any company and its investors and there’s an opportunity cost to standing still. The keys to that are in the nominating committee hands.

2015 director opposition votes

Summary data S&P 500 large cap S&P 400 mid cap S&P 600 small cap Russell 3000

Average director opposition votes 3% 4% 5% 5%

Number of director candidates 4,700 2,500 3,200 17,500

Portion of director nominees with more than 20% opposition votes 2% 3% 5% 4%

Questions for the board and nominating committee to consider

Are the company’s proxy disclosures adequately showcasing the diverse backgrounds, skills and qualifications of the directors?

Is there a robust mix of perspectives—aligned with company strategies and risks—among the current line-up of directors?

Based on changing company strategies, risks and challenges, how much board turnover is optimal—in the next one, two or three years—in order to stay on top of these developments?

Is the board providing a robust disclosure of the board assessment processes?

Does the board follow through with board assessments by reviewing key takeaways and implementing an action plan—with deadlines?

When was the last time the selection criteria for director nominees was reassessed and updated?

Summary data	S&P 500	S&P 1500	Russell 3000
Average board tenure	10	10	9
Average age	63	63	62
Gender diversity	20%	16%	13%

Summary data	S&P 500 large cap	S&P 400 mid cap	S&P 600 small cap	Russell 3000
Average director opposition votes	3%	4%	5%	5%
Number of director candidates	4,700	2,500	3,200	17,500
Portion of director nominees with more than 20% opposition votes	2%	3%	5%	4%

___________________________________

*Ruby Sharma is a principal and Ann Yerger is an executive director at the EY Center for Board Matters at Ernst & Young LLP. The following post is based on a report from the EY Center for Board Matters, available here.

Deux billets clés sur les conséquences juridiques du Brexit (en reprise)

Au lendemain du référendum mené en Grande-Bretagne (GB), on peut se demander quelles sont les implications juridiques d’une telle décision. Celles-ci sont nombreuses ; plusieurs scénarios peuvent être envisagés pour prévoir l’avenir des relations entre la GB et l’Union européenne (UE).

Ben Perry de la firme Sullivan & Cromwell et Simon Witty de la firme Davis Polk & Wardwell ont exploré toutes les facettes légales de cette nouvelle situation dans deux articles parus récemment sur le site du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.

Ce sont deux articles très approfondis sur les répercussions du Brexit. On doit admettre que le processus de retrait de l’UE est complexe, qu’il y a plusieurs modèles dont la GB peut s’inspirer (Suisse, Norvégien, Islandais, Liechtenstein), et que le vote n’a pas d’effets légaux immédiats. En fait, le processus de sortie et de renégociation peut durer trois ans !

Je vous invite à prendre connaissance de ces deux articles afin d’être mieux informés sur les principales avenues conséquentes au retrait de la GB de l’UE.

Le 25 juin, je vous ai déjà présenté l’article de Perry qui a suscité beaucoup d’intérêt (Brexit: Legal Implications).

Aujourd’hui, je vous présente le texte de l’article de Witty (The Legal Consequences of Brexit) qui met l’accent sur les répercussions prévisibles qu’aura ce retrait sur le marché des capitaux, les fusions et acquisitions, les différends liés aux contrats, les lois antitrusts, les services financiers et les mesures de taxation.

Bonne lecture !

The Legal Consequences of Brexit

On June 23, 2016, the UK electorate voted to leave the European Union. The referendum was advisory rather than mandatory and does not have any immediate legal consequences. It will, however, have a profound effect. With any next steps being driven by UK and EU politics, it is difficult to predict the future of the UK’s relationship with the EU. This post discusses the process for Brexit, the alternative models of relationship that the UK may seek to adopt, and certain implications for the capital markets, mergers and acquisitions, contractual disputes and enforcement, anti-trust, financial services and tax.

The process for exiting the EU

The treaties that govern the EU expressly contemplate a member state leaving. Under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, the UK must notify the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the EU. Once notice is given, the UK has two years to negotiate the terms of its withdrawal. Any extension of the negotiation period will require the consent of all 27 remaining member states. When to invoke the Article 50 mechanism is, therefore, a strategically important decision. In a statement announcing his intention to resign as Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron stated that the decision to provide notice under Article 50 to the European Council should be taken by the next Prime Minister, who is expected to be in place by October 2016.

Waving United Kingdom and European Union Flag

Any negotiated agreement will require the support of at least 20 out of the 27 remaining member states, representing at least 65% of the EU’s population, and the approval of the European Parliament. If no agreement is reached or no extension is agreed, the UK will automatically exit the EU two years after the Article 50 notice is given, even if no alternative trading model or arrangement has been negotiated. The UK continues to be a member of the EU in the interim period, subject to all EU legislation and rules.

Alternative models of relationship

It is not clear what model of relationship the UK will seek to negotiate with the EU. In the run-up to the referendum, a number of options were suggested. Politicians in favor of withdrawing from the EU did not coalesce around a specific alternative. It is, therefore, unclear what model will ultimately be followed or whether any of the models could be achieved through the Article 50 process. The principal options are outlined below.

The Norwegian model. The UK might seek to join the European Economic Area, as Norway has. The UK would have considerable access to the internal market, i.e., the association of European countries trading with each other without restrictions or tariffs, including in financial services. The UK would have limited access to the internal market for agriculture and fisheries; and it would not benefit from or be bound by the EU’s external trade agreements. In addition, the UK would have to make significant financial contributions to the EU and continue to allow free movement of persons. It would also have to apply EU law in a number of fields, but the UK would no longer participate in policymaking at the EU level, and would be excluded from participation in the European Supervisory Authorities, the key architects of secondary legislation in the financial services sphere. To adopt this model, the UK would require the agreement of all 27 remaining EU member states, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

Negotiated bilateral agreements. Like Switzerland, the UK might seek to enter into various bilateral agreements with the EU to obtain access to the internal market in specific sectors (rather than the market as a whole, which would be the case under the Norwegian model). This model would likely require the UK to accept some of the EU’s rules on free movement of persons and comply with particular EU laws. Again, the UK would not participate formally in the drafting of those laws. The UK would also have to make financial contributions to the EU. Negotiating these bilateral agreements would be a difficult and time-consuming process. Switzerland, for instance, has negotiated more than 100 individual agreements with the EU to cover market access in different sectors. As a result of its complexity, it is unclear whether the EU would work with the UK to negotiate this model within the Article 50 timeframe.

Customs union. A customs union is currently in place between the EU and Turkey in respect of trade in goods, but not services. Under this model, Turkey can export goods to the EU without having to comply with customs restrictions or tariffs. Its external tariffs are also aligned with EU tariffs. The UK might seek to negotiate a similar arrangement with the EU. Under such an arrangement, and unless separately negotiated, UK financial institutions (including UK subsidiaries of US holding companies) would not be able to provide financial and professional services into the EU on equal terms with EU member state firms. For example, the EU passporting regime would not be available, meaning UK firms would have to seek separate licensing in each EU member state to provide certain financial services. Furthermore, in areas where the UK would have access to the internal market, it would likely be required to enforce rules that are equivalent to those in the EU. The UK would not be required to make any financial contributions to the EU, nor would it be bound by the majority of EU law.

Free trade agreement. The UK might seek to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, which would cover goods and services. To do so, it may look to the agreement that was recently agreed between the EU and Canada after seven years of negotiations. This agreement removes tariffs in respect of trade in goods, as well as certain non-tariff barriers in respect of trade in goods and services. Although the UK would not be required to contribute to the EU budget, its exports to the EU would have to comply with the applicable EU standards.

WTO membership. Under this model, the UK would not have any preferential access to the internal market or the 53 markets with which the EU has negotiated free trade agreements. Tariffs and other barriers would be imposed on goods and services traded between the UK and the EU, although, under WTO rules, certain caps would apply on tariffs applicable to goods, and limits would be imposed on particular non-tariff barriers applicable to goods and services. The UK would no longer be required to make any financial contributions to the EU, nor would it be bound by EU laws (although it would have to comply with certain rules in order to trade with the EU).

Implications for UK legislation

Regardless of which model it adopts, the UK will no longer be required to apply some (if not all) EU legislation. The UK has implemented certain EU laws (generally, EU directives) via primary legislation that will continue to be part of English law, unless these are amended or repealed. Other EU laws (generally, EU regulations) have direct applicability in the UK without the need for implementation, which means that these laws would fall away once the UK withdraws from the EU, unless they are transposed into UK law. Finally, thousands of statutory instruments have been made pursuant to the European Communities Act 1972. If this act is repealed upon the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, then, unless transposed into UK law, these statutory instruments will cease to apply as well. Therefore, the UK will have to perform a complex exercise to determine which EU laws and EU-derived laws it wishes to retain, amend or repeal, driven in part by the nature of any agreement reached with the EU during exit negotiations.

How may Brexit affect you?

The UK’s withdrawal from the EU will impact countless areas of the economy. The following section discusses a number of Brexit’s potential implications for the capital markets, mergers and acquisitions, contractual disputes and enforcement, anti-trust, financial services and tax. The extent to which these areas will be affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will depend on the model of relationship that the UK and the EU adopt following the Brexit negotiations.

Capital Markets

The financial markets will likely continue to be volatile, particularly during the Brexit negotiations. This may affect the timing of transactions or their ability to be consummated.

The EU Prospectus Directive, which has been transposed into UK law, governs the content, format, approval and publication of prospectuses throughout the EU. Following eventual Brexit, the UK may no longer be bound by the Prospectus Directive and, thus, may seek to amend its prospectus legislation. For example, the Prospectus Directive provides that a company incorporated in an EU member state must prepare a prospectus if it wishes to offer shares to the public and/or request that shares be admitted to trading in the EU, subject to certain exemptions. The UK may wish to expand these exemptions, so that more offers can be made in the UK without a prospectus. Significantly, the Prospectus Directive also provides for the passporting of prospectuses throughout the EU. This means that a company can use a prospectus that has been approved in one member state to offer shares in any other EU member state. Without this passporting regime, UK companies will have to have their prospectuses approved both in the UK and at least one other member state where they wish to offer their shares, which may be particularly costly and time-consuming if the UK amends, for instance, the content requirements for prospectuses following Brexit, so that these no longer align with those prescribed by the Prospectus Directive.

During the Brexit negotiations, transaction documents may need to include specific Brexit provisions, for example to address the uncertainty around the model of relationship to be adopted.

M&A

As a result of ongoing uncertainty around the future of the UK’s relationship with the EU, a number of transactions with a UK nexus may be affected pending the Brexit negotiations.

Share sale transactions generally are not subject to much EU law or regulation. Asset and business sales, however, may be more affected by Brexit. For example, the regulations that protect the rights of employees on a business transfer stem from a European directive. When the UK withdraws from the EU, it may no longer be bound by this directive, and, therefore, the UK may wish to amend or repeal the regulations.

Contractual Disputes and Enforcement

As a member of the EU, the UK is part of a framework for deciding jurisdiction in disputes, recognizing judgments of other member states (and having its own courts’ judgments recognized and enforced throughout the EU) and deciding the governing law of contracts. Following Brexit, the UK may no longer be part of this framework which may affect jurisdiction and governing law choices in transaction documents.

Anti-trust

Currently, mergers that fall within the scope of the EU Merger Regulation can receive EU-wide clearance, which means that they are not also required to be cleared by individual member states. Following Brexit, mergers with a UK nexus may need to be reviewed by the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority separately.

More generally, UK anti-trust legislation is currently based on, and interpreted in line with, EU law, including decisions of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. Given that UK courts may no longer be required to interpret national law consistently with EU law once the UK withdraws from the EU, businesses face the prospect of having to comply with divergent systems.

Financial Services

Much of the UK’s financial services regulation is based on EU law. This includes legislation such as the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), which regulates investment services and trading venues, the European Market Infrastructure Regulation, which regulates the derivatives market, the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, which regulates hedge funds and private equity, and the Capital Requirements Directive and the Capital Requirements Regulation, which together represent the EU’s implementation of the international Basel III accords for the prudential regulation of banks. The Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (“BRRD”) has been implemented into UK law via the Banking Act 2009, so the fundamental bank resolution regime should initially survive Brexit. That said, substantial further EU legislative work is expected in this area to modify BRRD (e.g., in relation to the implementation of the TLAC standard), so it is possible that the regimes could diverge rapidly after Brexit. In general with financial services legislation, an assessment will need to be made whether to align with EU legislation or diverge; the greater the divergence, the more the dual burdens on cross-border firms.

As mentioned above, the UK will likely not be part of the European Supervisory Authorities framework and will have no influence in the development of primary or secondary EU legislation and guidance. The UK has been a significant force in the area of financial services legislation and has driven the introduction of, for instance, the BRRD. The UK’s withdrawal may impact the legislative agenda and ultimately the quality of the legislation produced.

Financial institutions established in EEA member states can obtain a “passport” that allows them to access the markets of other EEA member states without being required to set up a subsidiary and obtain a separate license to operate as a financial services institution in those member states. Following Brexit, UK financial services institutions, including subsidiaries of US and other non-EU parent companies, would no longer be able to benefit from passporting (unless the UK were to join the EEA pursuant to the Norway option described above).

Although the UK will likely remain a member of the EU for a substantial period while negotiations are ongoing, there are pressing questions as to how the UK will engage with the ongoing legislative processes that affect the UK financial services industry. There are a number of areas where framework legislation has been passed already, but key secondary legislation is being developed or revised. These areas include the complete overhaul of MiFID and the Payment Services Directive. Even before the UK leaves the EU, we can expect to see a diminished role for the UK Government, UK regulators and UK market participants in shaping the detailed policies and procedures in those areas.

We expect larger financial institutions in the UK, or those based outside the UK that have significant operations in the UK, will wish to contribute to the negotiation process between the EU and UK. In particular, to the extent a unique model for trading relationships is proposed, these institutions may wish to engage with policymakers to minimize disruption and damage to their EU business model.

Tax

The EU has influenced many areas of the UK’s tax system. In some cases, this has been through EU legislation which applies directly in the UK; in other cases, EU rules have been adopted through UK legislation (for example, the UK’s VAT legislation is based on principles which apply across the EU); and, in still other cases, decisions of the European Court of Justice have either influenced the development of UK tax rules, or have prevented the UK’s tax authority from enforcing aspects of the UK’s domestic tax code. This complicated backdrop means that the tax impact of Brexit will be varied and difficult to predict.

Areas to watch include the following:

Direct tax: although the UK has an extensive double tax treaty network, not all treaties provide for zero withholding tax on interest and royalty payments. Accordingly, corporate groups should consider the extent to which existing structures rely on EU rules such as the Parent-Subsidiary Directive or the Interest and Royalties Directive to secure tax efficient payment flows. Similarly, corporate groups proposing to undertake cross border reorganisations would need to consider the extent to which existing cross-EU border merger tax reliefs will survive intact. It should also be borne in mind that, even if Brexit occurs, the UK is likely to continue vigorously supporting the OECD’s BEPS initiative such that there may well be considerable constraints and complexities associated with locating businesses outside the UK.

VAT: although VAT is an EU-wide tax regime, it seems inconceivable that VAT will be abolished. However, it is likely that, over time, there will be a divergence between UK VAT rules and EU VAT rules, including as to input VAT recovery on supplies made to non-UK customers. Additionally, UK companies may lose the administrative benefit of the “one stop shop” for businesses operating in Europe.

Customs duty: if the UK left the customs union, exports to and imports from EU countries may become subject to tariffs or other import duties (as well as additional compliance requirements).

Transfer taxes: it seems that the UK would, at least in principle, be able to (re)impose the 1.5% stamp duty/stamp duty reserve tax charge in respect of UK shares issued or transferred into a clearance or depositary receipt system. Accordingly, the position for UK-headed corporate groups seeking to list on the NYSE or Nasdaq may become less certain.

______________________________

*Ben Perry is a partner in the London office of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. This post is based on a Sullivan & Cromwell publication.

*Simon Witty is a partner in the Corporate Department at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. This post is based on a Davis Polk memorandum.

Dix mesures que les présidents de CA devraient examiner afin d’affirmer leurs rôles de leader

À chaque semaine je donne la parole à Johanne Bouchard* qui agit à titre d’auteure invitée sur mon blogue en gouvernance. Ce billet est une reprise de son article publié le 27 juillet 2015.

L’auteure a une solide expérience d’interventions de consultation auprès de conseils d’administration de sociétés américaines et d’accompagnements auprès de hauts dirigeants de sociétés publiques.

Dans ce billet, elle propose dix (10) mesures que les présidents de conseils d’administration (PCA) devraient considérer afin de mieux exercer leurs rôles de leader.

Je crois que vous serez intéressés à connaître les mesures qu’une consultante chevronnée recommande aux présidents de conseils eu égard au bon fonctionnement de leurs conseils ? Elle nous invite par ailleurs à examiner le fonctionnement du CA à la lumière de ces questions.

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.

Soyez un président de conseil d’administration exemplaire en dix (10) étapes

L’article que je recommande aujourd’hui s’adresse aux praticiens qui se questionnent encore sur la pertinence et l’à-propos de l’utilisation des médias sociaux pour communiquer des informations financières, dans ce cas-ci par l’intermédiaire de Twitter.

Les auteurs ont procédé à une étude scientifique, l’une des plus exhaustives dans le domaine, afin de connaître les effets de la divulgation des résultats financiers sur Twitter, le média par excellence pour faire connaître, universellement et à une période bien définie, des informations concernant la performance des entreprises. L’article investigue en détail les effets bénéfiques de l’utilisation de ce canal pour disséminer des informations simultanément à toute la communauté des affaires.

L’article utilise une méthodologie scientifique rigoureuse et une analyse statistique élaborée qui peut cependant paraître un peu difficile d’accès. C’est pourquoi je vous recommande la lecture de l’extrait qui suit et qui décrit sommairement l’approche méthodologique, les questions de recherches ainsi que l’analyse des résultats.

En bref, aujourd’hui, aucune entreprise ne peut se passer de l’apport des médias sociaux pour communiquer de manière instantanée avec le marché financier. L’étude examine les stratégies que les entreprises mettent en œuvre afin de profiter au maximum des opportunités offertes à l’ère des médias sociaux (par exemple, en étant plus actives lorsque les résultats sont conformes ou dépassent les attentes des analystes financiers).

Cet article, publié dans le Harvard Law School Forum, par les professeurs James Naughton et Clare Wang de Northwestern University, Michael Jung, de New York University, et Ahmed Tahoun, du London Business School, est l’un des premiers à s’intéresser à la divulgation des résultats via Twitter.

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.

Peu importe le type de conseil, l’exercice du pouvoir d’influence autour de la table est loin d’être évident. Bien qu’il y ait une personne nommée pour présider les réunions du conseil, il y a en général plusieurs personnes autour de la table qui voudront exercer leur pouvoir d’influence sur les autres. Il est fréquent pour les membres du conseil d’administration de manquer de précision au sujet de la responsabilité du président, y compris pour le président lui-même et le chef de la direction.

Encore aujourd’hui, les postes de président du conseil d’administration et de chef de la direction sont trop souvent tenus par la même personne. On peut comprendre que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles, telle une transition au niveau du chef de la direction, cela puisse être encore le cas. Cependant, afin d’assurer une gouvernance exemplaire, les postes de président du conseil d’administration et de chef de la direction doivent être séparés et occupés par deux personnes distinctes, même si cela peut créer des défis au niveau relationnel et dynamique. Ceci peut créer de la confusion quant à l’attribution des responsabilités de chacun.

Voici dix (10) mesures que vous pouvez prendre pour devenir un excellent président de CA

1. Soyez clairs au sujet de votre rôle et de celui des autres

À titre de président, votre rôle est la direction générale du conseil d’administration. Le président est responsable d’assurer la bonne gouvernance du conseil et d’établir des processus clairs que tous les membres comprennent lorsqu’on traite de questions critiques. Les conseils d’administration doivent adopter des procédures pour traiter de ces questions. Maîtrisez-les et assurez-vous que chaque personne autour de la table connaisse votre rôle et le leur, y compris le rôle du chef de la direction (ou du directeur général quand il s’agit du conseil d’administration d’un organisme à but non lucratif).

2. Le président du conseil et le chef de la direction doivent travailler ensemble, et non les uns contre les autres

Le chef de la direction assure la direction de son équipe de gestionnaires (le management) et assiste d’office aux réunions du conseil d’administration, sans nécessairement être un administrateur ; c’est le président toutefois qui dirige le conseil.

3. Établissez des règles éthique élevées

Concentrez-vous d’abord sur la gouvernance; établissez et maintenez des normes éthiques élevées, accompagnées d’un véritable code d’éthique, que les administrateurs comprennent et avec lequel ils sont d’accord et qui reflète la culture de l’entreprise. Soyez un modèle en ce qui regarde la conduite éthique. Ayez le courage de bien faire, en étant conscients des conséquences négatives de ne pas bien le faire.

4. Bâtissez et maintenez le bon conseil

Autrefois, les conseils d’administration fonctionnaient comme un groupe d’individus se réunissant pour entendre les mises à jour et prendre des décisions, sans s’engager dans la stratégie de l’entreprise. De nos jours, il est essentiel que le président du conseil d’administration bâtisse un conseil efficace avec la vision et la volonté de gérer rondement les crises majeures, avec le plus de transparence possible, le tout sans nuire à l’accomplissement des affaires quotidiennes.

5. Incitez chaque administrateur à respecter les normes d’éthique établies par le conseil

Vous devez prendre des mesures correctives lorsque le comportement d’un membre s’écarte des règles d’éthique acceptées. Il n’y a pas de place pour les excuses.

6. Définissez et respectez un ordre du jour clair

C’est la responsabilité du président de rencontrer et d’interagir avec tous les membres du conseil d’administration, ainsi qu’avec le chef de la direction (ou avec le directeur général, s’il s’agit d’un OBNL) entre les réunions du conseil pour recueillir leurs commentaires concernant les actions qui nécessitent une prise de décision et les questions non résolues qui doivent être abordées à la prochaine rencontre. Le chef de la direction doit être impliqué dans la préparation de l’ordre du jour, mais c’est le président du conseil qui doit donner son accord final. Il en est le maître.

7. Le président du conseil devrait guider le chef de la direction

Le rôle du président du conseil est de fournir de l’aide au chef de la direction entre les réunions. Il est important de soutenir le chef de la direction dans la communication des faits, bons et moins bons. Ne soyez pas complaisant avec lui. Félicitez-le, lorsque cela est justifié, et n’hésitez pas à lui dire ce qui n’est pas acceptable. Assurez-vous qu’il ne reçoive pas d’informations divergentes d’autres administrateurs de la société, et qu’il se sente confortable avec vous lorsque qu’une clarification est nécessaire ou lorsqu’il doit rester sur ses positions pour le bien de l’entreprise.

8. Le président du conseil doit prioriser la formation continue et le développement des compétences

Soyez conscients que votre leadership se doit d’être inspirant, et que vous devez avoir le pouls des enjeux en cours. Vous devez avoir des connaissances spécifiques en ce qui regarde les affaires de l’entreprise, ses clients, ses partenaires et son management. Vous devez avoir une bonne connaissance des facteurs qui menacent l’industrie, tels que la cyber-sécurité, la fraude, la mondialisation, les actionnaires activistes, etc. La surveillance des risques demeure la responsabilité du président et des membres de son conseil d’administration.

9. Le président doit guider le conseil de manière à ce qu’il établisse un processus de participation à la conception et au suivi de la planification stratégique avec le chef de la direction et son groupe de dirigeants

Les temps sont révolus où un conseil d’administration se contentait simplement d’approuver les décisions. Ne tenez pas pour acquis que le président et son conseil sont d’accord sur la meilleure stratégie à mettre en œuvre à un moment précis de croissance ou de stress de l’entreprise. Veillez à ce que les actions du conseil et celles des cadres soient bien alignées. Prenez l’initiative, avec le chef de la direction, de planifier une retraite annuelle de discussion stratégique avec les cadres. Celle-ci doit être minutieusement préparée avec le soutien d’un expert-conseil qui ne soit pas lié aux résultats, qui n’ait pas de préjugés concernant les participants, et qui soit objectif en toute circonstance.

10. Le président doit être un précurseur et tenir le CA, le chef de la direction et les autres dirigeants imputables

Évaluez annuellement l’efficacité du conseil d’administration est une quasi-nécessité de nos jours. Sincèrement, connaissez-vous une équipe dont on n’évalue pas la performance ? Alors, déléguez cette importante responsabilité au président du comité de gouvernance. Assurez-vous de reconnaître les talents de tous vos administrateurs et essayez de repérer des moyens pour améliorer votre propre leadership. Évaluez le rendement du chef de la direction ainsi que la performance de l’équipe dirigeante.

Quand j’évalue le leadership d’un conseil d’administration, je remarque que les administrateurs respectent un président qui est engagé, qui sait comment créer une culture saine au sein du conseil et qui peut soutenir son chef de la direction dans l’amélioration de son rendement. Les membres de la haute direction me rappellent souvent que les présidents de conseils d’administration peuvent amoindrir son efficacité s’ils ne sont pas clairs quant aux limites de leur rôle. Bien que les dirigeants désirent un rapprochement avec le conseil d’administration, son président ne devrait pas utiliser ces occasions pour se ranger du côté des cadres au détriment du leadership du chef de la direction. Il est crucial pour le président et les administrateurs de connaître le potentiel des hauts dirigeants.

Prenez le temps requis pour bien préparer les administrateurs avant les réunions du conseil. Soyez transparents avec eux. Devenez un leader puissant, non pas pour vous approprier un pouvoir personnel, mais pour gagner le respect que ce rôle de leader exige.

*Johanne Bouchard est consultante auprès de conseils d’administration, de chefs de la direction et de comités de direction. Johanne a développé une expertise au niveau de la dynamique et la de composition d’un conseil d’administration. Après l’obtention de son diplôme d’ingénieure en informatique, sa carrière l’a menée à œuvrer dans tous les domaines du secteur de la technologie, du marketing et de la stratégie à l’échelle mondiale.

Pour en connaître plus sur le site de Johanne Bouchard

United Kingdom

Shareholder Activism—recent developments in the U.K.

France

France is in the process of strengthening its Say on Pay

Germany

New players rising

Italy

Switzerland

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Key Findings from the study

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

True majority voting requirement

Annual elections now required

Disclosure relating to diversity

Conclusions

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Context

Findings

Summary: Trends in Audit Committee Disclosure

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Common Methods of Board Evaluation

1. Questionnaires

2. Group Discussions

3. Interviews

Individual Director Evaluations

Disclosures about Board Evaluations

What Companies Should Do Now

Endnotes:

Partagez (share) ce post

Shareholder activism and board composition

Assessing what you have–and what you need

Sample board composition grid: What skills and attributes does your board need?

Board diversity is a hot-button issue

Is there diversity on US boards?

How long is too long? Director tenure and mandatory retirement

Factors in the director tenure and age debate

Investor concern

What are investors saying about board composition and refreshment?

Proxy advisors’ views on board composition—recent developments

How can directors proactively address board refreshment?

Endnotes:

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

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

Partagez (share) ce post

(1) Evaluate and enhance disclosures about director qualifications, board composition and board assessment processes

(2) Integrate diversity, expertise and tenure considerations into board composition and succession planning

How does your brand compare?

(3) Growing attention to board composition and quality may influence how investors vote in future director elections

Where do nominating committees go from here?

2015 director opposition votes

Questions for the board and nominating committee to consider

___________________________________

Partagez (share) ce post

The process for exiting the EU

Alternative models of relationship

Implications for UK legislation

How may Brexit affect you?

Capital Markets

M&A

Contractual Disputes and Enforcement

Anti-trust

Financial Services

Tax

Partagez (share) ce post

Voici dix (10) mesures que vous pouvez prendre pour devenir un excellent président de CA

Partagez (share) ce post