Étiquette : C.A.

Présence de représentants des travailleurs sur les conseils d’administration en France


Didier Serrat a publié un article intéressant dans Le cercle | les Echos sur l’historique de la présence des représentants des travailleurs sur les conseils d’administration en France. Très bon résumé de la situation historique en lien avec le programme du nouveau gouvernement Hollande.

 

« La grande conférence sociale qui s’ouvre lundi 9 juillet devrait voir le sujet de la représentation des salariés au conseil d’administration des grandes entreprises « mis sur la table » selon l’expression du Premier ministre dans son discours de politique générale le 3 juillet dernier. « Rien ne sera tabou »… Pourtant la capacité de résistance de la société française sur ce sujet est particulièrement forte. Petit rappel historique ».

Gouvernance d’entreprise, sujet à suivre dans la grande conférence…

Il y a un problème lorsqu’un haut dirigeant est irremplaçable !


Très bon article publié dans le New York Times hier qui montre l’importance cruciale pour un Board de se préoccuper du processus de planification de la relève du PDG. L’article décrit la saga de la mise à pied de Robert Diamond Jr en tant que CEO de la Barclays. 

 
Barclay!
Barclay! (Photo credit: J Dueck)

« Was Robert E. Diamond Jr. really irreplaceable? The Barclays board operated for 15 years on the assumption that he was. As a result, the British bank’s chief executive became more powerful — and ever harder to replace. Now that he has been kicked out in the wake of the scandal over the rigging of a key interest rate, Barclays is struggling to find new leadership.

And the moral of the story? Boards must always counterbalance strong chief executives with strong chairmen and have good succession plans in place. Most importantly, they should never treat anybody as indispensable — in case that is what they become ».

L’IFA publie un document phare sur la gouvernance des sociétés cotées en France


L’IFA publie un document phare sur la gouvernance des sociétés cotées dont l’objectif est d’attirer en France les investisseurs étrangers en les informant des atouts de l’hexagone.

 La gouvernance des sociétés cotées à l’usage des investisseurs 

Voici comment on présente l’ouvrage.

La qualité de la gouvernance des sociétés françaises constitue indiscutablement une valeur ajoutée et un renforcement de la sécurité économique et juridique. Afin de faire connaître ces pratiques en dehors de nos frontières, l’Institut Français des Administrateurs et Paris Ile-de-France Capitale Economique, en partenariat avec le Conseil Supérieur de l’Ordre des Experts-Comptables et la Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes, publient « La gouvernance des sociétés cotées à l’usage des investisseurs ».

Cette synthèse sur les pratiques sociétales de gouvernance en France a été réalisée à partir de l’expertise d’un groupe de travail piloté par la Commission Internationale de l’IFA présidée par Marie-Ange Andrieux et regroupant des institutions du monde économique et financier. Elle se veut, à la fois, un outil d’information des investisseurs étrangers et un document de valorisation de la gouvernance de nos sociétés.

« L’étude réalisée montre, en effet, que les pratiques de gouvernance françaises des sociétés cotées se situent déjà au niveau des meilleurs standards européens et internationaux, indique ainsi Daniel Lebègue, Président de l’IFA. Ces pratiques devraient poursuivre leur dynamique de progression, dans les grands groupes comme dans les entreprises moyennes, et même s’étendre aux entreprises non cotées. Équilibre des pouvoirs, performance des instances de gouvernance, à travers, entre autres, les différents comités, et transparence sont des qualités dont peuvent se prévaloir aujourd’hui nombre de Conseils d’administration ; Qualités indiscutablement séduisantes pour des investisseurs internationaux… Et qu’il s’agit donc de leur faire connaître ! »

Paris
Paris (Photo credit: citronate)

« La qualité de la gouvernance des entreprises est devenue un facteur significatif d’attractivité et de confiance; il contribue à améliorer la réputation d’un pays ou d’une région économique vis-à-vis de ses partenaires industriels et financiers, souligne Pierre Simon, Président de Paris IDF Capitale Economique. Dans un contexte de concurrence mondiale, c’est un vrai atout. Nous l’avons en France. »

Les atouts de la gouvernance des sociétés cotées françaises sont multiples et détaillées dans la synthèse :

– Le poids prépondérant de la « soft law » par rapport à la réglementation, au regard des sources de la gouvernance,
– La composition des Conseils (indépendance, diversité, mixité, compétences…) et l’efficacité de leur fonctionnement (comités, secrétariat général…),
– La qualité de la transparence de l’information tant financière qu’extra financière,
– La clarté de la communication sur la rémunération des mandataires sociaux,
– Le bon équilibre des pouvoirs entre les actionnaires et le Conseil d’Administration, 
– Le respect du droit des actionnaires et les outils mis à disposition des non-résidents au service de l’engagement actionnarial,
– Une bonne gestion des risques, facilitée par le rôle efficient des organismes de vérification et de contrôle.

Les administrateurs doivent-ils communiquer avec les investisseurs ?


Voici une question fondamentale à laquelle tout administrateur sera probablement confronté durant son mandat. Comme c’est un sujet assez controversé, il est très important de soulever cette question dans le cadre de ses fonctions au sein d’un C.A. Les membres de conseils d’administration doivent savoir quelle est la politique à cet égard. L’article du Financial Times donne un apeçu des avis d’experts à ce sujet. Vous devez vous inscrire pour consulter cet article; c’est gratuit et je vous encourage à vous inscrire .
 
Investors and their directors need to talk – FT.com

Financial Times
Financial Times (Photo credit: Christine ™)

« So why don’t boards engage more directly with the shareholders who elect them into office?

… One director of a large blue chip multinational told me: “I put myself in the camp [that believes] that management should do all the speaking.” Another said: “There is a great deal of uneasiness about directors establishing relationships directly with investors and a perception that they could inadvertently get in management’s way.” Their main worry was that shareholders might discern differences between themselves and the company’s management. Other directors, meanwhile, were anxious of falling foul of rules such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation Fair Disclosure which bans the selective release of information. One lead director of a large US company told me the “danger is higher than ever; one could blunder quite easily in saying something the company has not disclosed”.

Connaître ecoDa (European Confederation of Directors’ Associations)


EcoDa (European Confederation of Directors’ Associations), est une organisation dont l’objectif est de repésenter les positions des administrateurs de sociétés européennes en matière de gouvernance à l’échelle européenne. Il est donc important de connaître la mission, les objectifs et les activités de cette organisation afin d’être au fait de l’évolution des règles de gouvernance au parlement européen.
 
Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) est membre de ecoDa dans la catégorie RESEARCH ASSOCIATES. Je vous encourage donc à visiter ce site.
 
 
European Confederation of Directors’ Associations
 

ecoDa, the European Confederation of Directors’ Associations, is a not-for-profit association acting as the “European voice of directors ”, active since March 2005 and based in Brussels .

Through its national institutes of directors (the main national institutes existing in Europe ), ecoDa represents around fifty-five thousand board directors from across the EU. ecoDa’s member organisations represent board directors from the largest public companies to the smallest private firms, both listed and unlisted.

ecoDa’s mission is to promote Corporate Governance at large, to promote the role of directors towards shareholders and corporate stakeholders, and to promote the success of its national institutes.

Que penser de la gouvernance des entreprises de la Silicon Valley ?


Voici un excellent article, paru dans Dealbook.nytimes.com, et partagé par Louise Champoux-Paillé, dans le groupe de discussion Administrateurs de sociétés – Gouvernance sur LinkedIn. « Les entreprises de la Vallée favorisent une nouvelle gouvernance où les administrateurs et les actionnaires jouent un rôle effacé comparativement au président et chef de la direction. Une structure sans grand contrepoids ».

Cet article présente plusieurs exemples de cette «nouvelle gouvernance» et se questionne sur les tendances de ce mouvement : une exception (a blip) ou l’annonce de changements qui vont s’étendre à l’ensemble des modes de gouvernance des entreprises ?

In Silicon Valley, Chieftains Rule With Few Checks and Balances

English: Silicon Valley, seen from a jetliner ...
English: Silicon Valley, seen from a jetliner in the direction of San Jose (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So the new thing in Silicon Valley appears to be for public companies to be run as private ones without significant input from boards and shareholders. This leaves the wunderkinder of the Internet free to run their companies without interference. The question is whether this is merely a bubble in corporate governance or a trend that will spread to the rest of corporate America.

Exigence de divulgation du nombre de femmes sur les C.A. en Nouvelle-Zélande


La Nouvelle-Zélande fait un pas crucial afin d’inciter les entreprises cotées à accroître le nombre de femmes sur les C.A. et dans des postes de direction. La nouvelle directive est alignée sur celle de l’Australie qui exige également une autoévaluation de la politique formelle de diversité. Encore une fois, on assiste à une certaine globalisation des codes de gouvernance et des directives en découlant. 

 

New Zealand Exchange
New Zealand Exchange (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

« Listed companies will be required to disclose how many women they have on their boards and in senior management, the NZX announced last night. In addition to publishing a gender breakdown of directors and senior management, firms with a formal diversity policy will be required to evaluate their performance with respect to that policy, NZX said…

… The NZX’s new rule brings New Zealand into closer alignment with Australia, where similar requirements introduced by the Australian Stock Exchange resulted in a big jump in the level of female representation on listed company boards. As of last August, 12.7 per cent of Australia’s top 200 listed firms had women directors, compared with just 9.3 per cent for the top 100 listed companies in this country ».

Révision du code de gouvernance de Singapour


Le nouveau code de gouvernance de Singapour contient des changements significatifs en ce sens qu’il insiste sur les standards éthiques à respecter et la notion de parties prenantes.  De plus, il précise que les entreprises doivent considérer les facteurs liés au développement durable dans la formulation de la stratégie. Cet article, paru dans csr-asia.com, est intéressant à lire parce qu’il illustre clairement la tendance à concevoir des codes de gouvernance semblables à l’échelle mondiale.

 

CSR Asia – Corporate Social Responsibility in Asia

English: Integrated boardroom designed and ins...
English: Integrated boardroom designed and installed by EDG in 2003. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
« These changes are and address areas of corporate governance best practice – director independence, board composition, director training, multiple directorships, alternate directors, remuneration practices and disclosures, risk management, as well as shareholder rights and roles plus fundamental changes to the very first principle, which sets out that ‘every company should be headed by an effective board’….

 
However, the Revised Code also included a fundamental change to the very first principle, which sets out that ‘every company should be headed by an effective board’.   Previously the 2005 Code of Corporate Governance had set out that the role of the board was to do all those things stated below in black text. The Revised Code added the text in red, broadening its requirements to cover sustainability and ethical standards and embedding them in company strategy. Arguably, a huge shift.
  1. provide entrepreneurial leadership, set strategic objectives, and ensure that the necessary financial and human resources are in place for the company to meet its objectives;
  2. establish a framework of prudent and effective controls which enables risks to be assessed and managed, including safeguarding of shareholders’ interests and the company’s assets;
  3. review management performance;
  4. identify the key stakeholder groups and recognise that their perceptions affect the company’s reputation;
  5. set the company’s values and standard (including ethical standards), and ensure that obligations to shareholders and other(s) stakeholders are understood and met; and
  6. consider sustainability issues, e.g. environmental and social factors, as part of its strategic formulation ».

Élaboration d’un continuum de comportements (soft-hard) en gouvernance


L’auteur, Mijntje Lückerath-Rovers, (Professeur de Corporate Governance à Nyenrode Business University et Directeur de l’Institute Nyenrode Corporate Governance des Pays-Bas) présente un continuum très utile en gouvernance : à une extrémité, l’approche comportementale (soft); à l’autre extrémité, la législation stricte (hard).

Pour éviter d’accroître induement la législation, l’auteur propose une réflexion sur les éléments culturels relatifs au C.A. et l’utilisation de mécanismes d’évaluation du C.A.

Learning Mores and Board Evaluationsblogs.law.harvard.edu

English: Corporate Governance
English: Corporate Governance (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

« In the paper, Learning Mores and Board Evaluations – Soft Controls in Corporate Governance, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, I argue that the prevailing boardroom mores, the unwritten rules, are at one end of having an impact on board effectiveness. Legislation, the more tangibly written rules, is at the other end. In between are voluntary codes of conduct, or legally embedded corporate governance codes….

… How, non-executive directors can avoid further legislation. In other words, how can they take a closer look at their own mores and unwritten rules? The answer lies in the board evaluation. A formal and rigorous evaluation will bring to light whether

1) the highly desired open culture is present,

2) the individual non-executive directors are sufficiently dedicated,

3) the supervisory board and its members do indeed operate sufficiently, independently, and have a critical attitude towards each other and executive directors, and

4) the board is sufficiently diverse to prevent group thinking and tunnel vision. The evaluation needs to discuss these themes seriously and formally. In the end, when it comes to board effectiveness, mores may have more authority than legislation ».

Avantages à la dissociation des rôles de Président du Conseil (PCA) et de Président et chef de la direction (PCD)


Voici un excellent article paru dans 24/7 WALL St qui montre clairement le besoin de séparer les fonctions de PCA et de PCD. Les études montrent que la rémunération globale des deux postes séparés est significativement moindre que la rémunération d’un PCA/PCD.

Breaking Up Chairman and CEO Roles

New York Stock Exchange
New York Stock Exchange (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

« CEOs do not like it. More and more often, it seems, the roles of  chairman and CEO become separate from one another. And the arrangement  usually is forced on the chief executive. A major problem at a big corporation  is often the catalyst of these actions. That certainly happened at many of the  nation’s banks after the financial crisis. Troubled Chesapeake Energy (NYSE:  CHK) ripped the chairman’s role from CEO Aubrey Mc Clendon when  it became clear that he took advantage of his position to financially enrich  himself… It turns out that there may be reasons other than good corporate governance  practices to separate the two jobs. A new  study by GMI Ratings, a corporate governance research firm, claims that  the decision to separate the roles also saves a public company, and thus, its  shareholders, money. In a new piece of research GMI found :

The cost of employing a combined CEO/chair is 151 percent of what it  costs to employ a separate CEO and chairman.

Specifically, the data show :

– Executives with a combined CEO and chair role earn a median total summary  compensation of just over $16 million.

– CEOs who do not serve as chair earn $9.8 million in median total summary  compensation.

– A separate CEO and chairman earn a combined $11 million ».

The Director’s Dilemma – Juillet 2012


Voici un cas présenté par Julie Garland McLelland www.mclellan.com.au. À chaque mois Julie présente un cas qui est analysé par trois experts. Vous pouvez vous abonner à la série Director’s Dilemma.

Welcome to the July 2012 edition of The Director’s Dilemma.

This newsletter provides case studies that have been written to help you to develop your judgement as a company director. The case studies are based upon real life; they focus on complex and challenging boardroom issues which can be resolved in a variety of ways. There is often no one ‘correct’ answer; just an answer that is more likely to work given the circumstances and personalities of the case.

These are real life cases; the names and some circumstances have been altered to ensure anonymity. Each potential solution to the case study has different pros and cons for the individuals and companies concerned. Every month this newsletter presents an issue and several responses.

Consider: Which response would you choose and why?

Miriam is the Regional Managing Director for a large multi-national company. She oversees a group of companies that manufacture and sell products across the region and also export from it. One of the subsidiaries in her group is in a country that has a small market for the products and is fundamentally unprofitable. She has recommended on several occasions that the board allow her to close this subsidiary and supply that market by importing product from other group companies. She has backed her recommendations with detailed market analyses and projections as well as implementation plans.

Each time the board has denied her request and she is forced to continue to see the subsidiary drain her region’s profits and the shareholders’ returns. Last time the board met in her region she made the usual request and was denied again. She lost her temper and said some fairly harsh words in an unprofessional tone.

Miriam is a professional manager and has produced good results so her transgression was forgiven. However the board is, once again, meeting in her region and she has another invitation to present her recommended strategy to them.

What should Miriam do?

Eli’s Answer

Before addressing the board again, Miriam needs to find out why its members have so far refused to close the subsidiary. There may be a surface agenda as well as a hidden agenda, and she needs to uncover both. Once she finds out what the real concerns are, she needs to factor them into any proposed solution, which may be something other than her first choice.

When proposing the eventual solution, Miriam should first acknowledge respectfully the concerns about the proposed closing, and then explain the challenge she has in balancing these concerns with the need to be fiscally viable. The fact that she acknowledges the board’s concerns with utmost respect will likely make it easier for the board to listen to her proposed solution. Again, the proposed solution would probably not be an outright shutdown, but one that would somehow optimize the positive outcomes and minimize the risks.

Of course, there is a possibility that Miriam will discover that the board’s resistance to a shutdown is not legitimate but is emotionally or personally-based (e.g., the board Chair is the one who orchestrated the start-up of this subsidiary and takes personal offence to any suggestion of a shut down). If this is the case, Miriam may consider whether she can tolerate working in this setting. If her professionalism is substantially compromised, she should consider resigning.

One other issue to consider is whether the board should even be involved in decisions to start-up or wind-down a subsidiary, or whether such decisions should be delegated to the CEO who would make them on strictly professional considerations. However, such a change would require a revision of board policy to delegate more authority to management and remain focused primarily on strategic priorities, fiduciary duties, and organizational policies.

Eli Mina is a consultant on board effectiveness, shared decision making, and meeting procedures. He is the author of « 101 Boardroom Problems and How to Solve Them » and is based in Vancouver, Canada.

Julie’s Answer

Miriam must set the correct strategic context for a board discussion. She should investigate and understand the reasons the subsidiary was established and the assumptions presented to the board when they approved establishment. She should ask:

  1. Were the assumptions wrong?
  2. Were the assumptions right but the world has now changed?
  3. Have the reasons for setting up in such a small market ceased to exist?
  4. Can the aims of the subsidiary be addressed by another strategy?

Loss of temper (or any emotional control) is not acceptable behaviour for a senior executive. Miriam is lucky to have a second chance. She must make the most of this by establishing a strong shared understanding of strategy for the subsidiary. She needs to present the facts and align herself with the board by building agreement about what the subsidiary was set up to accomplish before she asks the board to endorse a change of strategy.

She then needs to demonstrate that the board can rely on her leadership to implement the strategy she is recommending. This is not just a question of financial logic and brief implementation plans; she must address risks including legal issues around staff redundancies and closure of facilities. The board needs to satisfy itself that the strategy recommended will be satisfactorily implemented under her leadership.

Board time is precious and Miriam should write a good board paper so that all directors are able to engage in a productive discussion and confidently make a decision.

If the board is still unwilling to close the subsidiary she will just have to carry on running it. By engaging in a proper high level discussion Miriam should gain an insight into the reasons for retaining a loss-making subsidiary. She may even find that she agrees with the directors.

Miriam needs to relax. It is the board’s decision, not hers. She has done her duty by providing the information required to facilitating a proper debate and decision.

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

Michelle’s Answer

Miriam is forgetting that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results! If the board is saying ‘no’ – then it’s ‘no’! The good news for Miriam is that ‘no’ is just feedback that she didn’t properly understand her audience’s attitude. Miriam simply hasn’t reflected to the board that she understands their perspective before seeking approval. ‘No’ means try again, just do something different!

To date Miriam has presented her logic, data and analysis and only covered what she wanted to say, and it’s not working. Miriam should remember, ‘it’s not about me, it’s all about the audience’. I suggest Miriam think about the issues from the board member’s (not her own) perspective. She should ask herself, ‘what is this audience thinking, feeling and doing in relation to this issue?’ She could phone each board member prior to the board meeting and elicit their concerns. She could seek feedback from her direct reports as they are possibly more connected to the issues at the coal face. I expect Miriam would find that her previous approach was misdirected. Instead of focusing on profitability (her main concern) there’s probably a different matter getting in the way of their approval, such as a prior commitment to the staff in the unprofitable subsidiary or to the wider financial market regarding the closure of the subsidiary.

We are more likely to be influenced by our emotions first and then substantiate our views with logic and data. It’s important that Miriam dedicates some time in the opening of her upcoming board presentation to re-establish rapport with her board. Only then is she in a position to deliver the relevant facts and data based on her assessment of their perspective.

This matter is important, so I encourage her to allocate the time important matters deserve. Miriam must plan her approach and rehearse until she is confident. A professional presentation skills coach can help dramatically with the necessary preparation for this type of business presentation.

Michelle Bowden, CSP is a Master of Influence and presentations coach. She is the author of « Don’t Picture me Naked » – how to present your ideas and influence people using techniques that actually work. She is based in Sydney, Australia.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed above are general in nature and are designed to help you to develop your judgement as a director. They are not a definitive legal ruling. Names and some circumstances in the case study have been changed to ensure anonymity. Contributors to this newsletter comment in the context of their own jurisdiction; readers should check their local laws and regulations as they may be very different.

This newsletter – If you have any ideas for improving the newsletter please let me know. If you are reading a forwarded copy please visit my website and sign up for your own subscription.

www.mclellan.com.au | PO Box 97 Killara NSW 2071 email julie@mclellan.com.au | phone +61 2 9499 8700 | mobile +61 411 262 470 | fax +61 2 9499 8711

Le C.A. et l’utilisation des médias sociaux


Excellent document de Santiago Chaher et James David Spellman paru dans Global Corporate Governance Forum Publication. La publication présente plusieurs facteurs qui devraient inciter les conseils d’administration à se préoccuper sérieusement des médias sociaux. À lire. 

Corporate Governance and Social Media

« What should board members know about social media as it relates to a company’s ability to do business and safeguard its image? And what is the board’s role in helping a company make the best use of social media—and defending against its misuse? Two corporate governance practitioners provide insights on the power of new social technologies to shape boards’ decisions and bolster stakeholders’ influence ».
 
Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...
Image via CrunchBase

« In short, today’s corporate directors have the ‘necessary’ skills in terms of compliance and financial performance, but not the ‘sufficient’ skills in terms of strategic or technological know how, » says Barry Libert, chief executive officer of OpenMatters, a consultancy for boards. « Why? Because for years, astute corporate directors believed the tools that companies like Facebook and Twitter offered weren’t essential. In their view, these new means of communications were for kids, had little, if any, business value, and created minimal strategic, operational or financial risks. Wow, were they wrong. »

This circumstance will change as business and personal needs require more extensive use of social media.For a 2011 Deloitte questionnaire, 79 percent of all public company respondents reported that their board’s use of technology is increasing.

Trois éléments que les comités d’audit ne doivent pas oublier !


Voici un article publié dans bankdirector.com qui nous rappelle les trois éléments essentiels qu’un comité d’audit doit tenir en ligne de compte au cours des prochaines années.

Trois points que les comités d’audit ne doivent pas oublier !

Against this backdrop, the work of audit committees has taken on added importance. With a slim margin of error and a shifting regulatory landscape, verifying that the proper internal controls and compliance measures are in place can be the difference between thriving, barely surviving, and falling behind the competition. Here are the top three issues that audit committees of community banks need to have on their radar for the coming year.

Voici les trois points présentés dans l’article. Pour une information complète, veuillez lire l’article.

1. Don’t Neglect Audit Fundamentals

2. Try to Anticipate What Comes Next

The following sources can provide important hints of what to expect.

– The Center for Audit Quality, based in Washington, D.C., regularly publishes insight and the latest developments. Its board includes leaders from public auditing firms and it is affiliated with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

– The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was established by Congress to oversee the audits of public companies and seeks to promote informative, accurate and independent audit reports.

– The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a list of proposed rules on its website that offer evidence on currents trends and areas that the agency is exploring.

– The business press, both in its coverage and the mix of stories, can be a barometer of where policymakers and enforcement agencies are directing their focus.

3. Be Forthright in Communicating About Negative Audits

Comment un PDG peut-il mieux communiquer avec son C.A. ?


Voici un article paru dans blog.openviewpartners.com qui montre la nécessité d’établir une bonne communication entre le PDG et le C.A. Si les réunions avec le C.A. sont un cauchemar pour vous, dépêchez-vous de lire cet article !

How to Take Advantage of Your Board of Directors

« It’s no secret a lot of CEOs aren’t big fans of their boards of directors. They derive very little value from them and in some cases find the board to be an utter distraction. Even seasoned CEOs who have managed to assemble a valuable team of advisors and mentors sometimes struggle with board management. They’re not sure how often to communicate with them, how involved they should allow board members to be, or in which areas the board could provide the most value…

The most common Board of Directors (BOD) challenges are often functions of these three issues:

  1. You don’t communicate with your BOD: If the only time you talk with your board is during quarterly meetings, an information gap will inevitably exist. That can cause a huge operational disconnect that results in ineffective and inefficient meetings. Too much of the BOD meetings are spent getting caught up, versus having a meaningful dialogue about the key issues.
  2. You don’t want to show your weaknesses: CEOs are very often hesitant to open up and reveal their weaknesses. This may be born out of a bad experience in the past or just pure ego. They worry that if they’re candid about the challenges the business is facing, they’ll be viewed as incompetent.
  3. You don’t want to bother them: Entrepreneurs too often assume that their board members are too busy to be bothered with seemingly menial issues, and they feel like a nuisance if they ask for help ». 

Gouvernance universitaire vs gouvernance corporative !


Ci-dessous un article publié par Patricia McGuire, President, Trinity Washington University, dans le Huffingtonpost.com et partagé par Estelle Metayer. C’est une lecture qui présente un point de vue qui est partagé par plusieurs auteurs et qui met en garde l’application des principes de gouvernance des grandes entreprises à la gouvernance des uviversités.

 
 

Run It Like a Business? Really?

« Let’s stop trashing academic governance while exalting corporate governance as perfect. There’s a need for governance reform in many different kinds of businesses — for-profit and not-for-profit, academic and commercial — and that need often coalesces around the same issues: innovation, speed to market, inclusion of those affected, ethics.

There’s a lot to be said for the wisdom of the group, whether a board meeting in full session — not in one-off emails or phone calls about vitally important decisions — or academic committees vetting the latest great idea about new programs or technologies. In higher education we call this « shared governance, » but it’s not really just an academic notion. In fact, some of the best boards and companies in America honor exactly the same idea that the people affected by decisions should have some say in them.

Thomas Jefferson had something to say about that idea. He called it democracy — the basis for our most fundamental principles of governance ».

Say On Pay : Analyzing the Voting Results of 2011 and 2012


Excellent article by Jeffrey M. Stein and Laura O. Hewett in The Metropolitan Corporate Council.

 

Say On Pay: Analyzing The Second Year Of Shareholder Votes

Say-O-Pay Voting Results in 2011 and 2012

« Despite the media headlines and the concerns of many in-house counsel leading up to the first round of mandatory say-on-pay votes in 2011, results were overwhelmingly positive.

  1. Public companies received an overall average of 92 percent support for say on pay in 2011.
  2. Approximately 45 companies failed to achieve majority support for the vote, which amounts to less than 2 percent of companies.
  3. Approximately 6 percent of companies received support in the range between 50 percent and 70 percent of the vote (or, thinking about it a different way, had at least 30 percent of shareholders vote against say on pay). While these were passing votes, the proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) considers this lower level of support as raising significant issues with respect to a company’s compensation program, and will subject that company’s compensation program to additional scrutiny in the following year.

Results of the say-on-pay votes in 2012 (through June 15, 2012) have continued to be overwhelmingly positive.

  1. Public companies have received an average of 91 percent support for say on pay in 2012.
  2. Approximately 52 companies have failed to achieve majority support for say on pay. While this number already exceeds the total number of companies that lost the vote in 2011, it still amounts to only 3 percent of companies.
  3. Approximately 6 percent of companies have received support of between 50 percent and 70 percent of the vote ».

Administrateurs de sociétés | Tendances, défis et opportunités


Excellent article de Susan Shultz du The Board Institute Inc. Vous trouverez, dans le document ci-dessous, 11 éléments-clés qui confrontent les administrateurs de sociétés aujourd’hui. À lire.

English: Frame of reference for research of in...
English: Frame of reference for research of integrateg Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Administrateurs de sociétés | Tendances, défis et opportunités

« Boards of directors matter — and now they matter more than ever. The market continues to demand increased transparency and accountability. New compliance mandates, regulation and shareholder activism are the drivers. Boards and their constituencies are clamoring for more strategic engagement and value-add by the directors. Yet this trend seems to be in stark contrast to the drumbeat for compliance and regulation. How can boards balance the pressures from their attorneys, auditors and regulators to be risk averse (Read: safe) with Wall Street calling for creativity, innovation and job creation? Challenges and opportunities for boards have never been greater, and good governance is more than just compliance ».

Les administrateurs doivent exercer un jugement sûr : Quelques éléments fondamentaux à considérer


The logo of KPMG.
The logo of KPMG. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, quelques conseils que les administrateurs de sociétés devraient suivre afin de s’assurer d’avoir un jugement robuste dans le cadre de la prise de décision. Cet article paru dans NACD Directorship le 24 juin 2012 met l’accent sur le texte « Enhancing Board Oversight: Avoiding Judgment Traps and Biases », un document du COSO (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission) dont les auteurs sont KPMG et les professeurs Steven M. Glover and Douglas F. Prawitt de Brigham Young University.

Good Judgment Requires Discipline, Awareness of Traps and Biases

It used to be that exercising good judgment largely meant “using common sense.” But today, while common sense is still essential, exercising good judgment—consistently— in a business environment that is increasingly complex and dynamic, volatile and uncertain, and under high pressure requires a disciplined process. It also requires an understanding of common traps and biases that can undermine the judgments of even seasoned professionals and boards.

Voici quelques considérations importantes à connaître. Il faut lire l’article au complet lequel réfère au document du COSO.

A good judgment process followed consistently can help improve decision-making and oversight, but “traps and biases” can undermine the process.

Our “intuitive” judgment can betray us.

Beware of three particularly common judgment traps How you “frame” an issue largely determines how you see it (or don’t see it).

Beware of four common biases that can undermine good judgment (unwittingly).

Exemple de révolte des actionnaires : Chesapeake Energy


Voici un article paru récemment dans le New-York Times et qui présente le résultat de la révolte des actionnaires lors de l’assemblée annuelle de Chesapeake Energy. On voit de plus en plus de situations où les administrateurs d’importantes sociétés sont l’objet de désapprobation de la part des actionnaires. La voix des actionnaires, par l’intermédiaire d’organisation comme ISS, se fait de plus en plus entendre et les C.A. doivent être de plus en plus vigilent.

Shareholders rebuke to the failed leadership of the board of directors at Chesapeake

Chesapeake Energy
Chesapeake Energy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Shareholders sent an angry message to the board and management of Chesapeake Energy on Friday, withholding support for the two directors up for election, rejecting the pay plan for top executives and urging the company to allow major shareholders to nominate their own board candidates.

Administratrice au féminin | Petit guide pour devenir administratrice


Louise Champoux-Paillé porte à votre attention cette récente publication française de European Professional Women’s Network publication – Administrateur au féminin |  Guide pour devenir administratrice. « Les chapitres 2 et 3 sont fort intéressants sur le plan de la stratégie et de la recherche d’un mandat. C’est le contexte français mais les conseils prodigués sont exportables ou adaptables ». (Auteures : Viviane de Beaufort, Jane Coblence, Miriam Garnier, Frédérique Génicot, Nathalie Gutel, Carol Lambert, Valérie Pilcer).

Administratrice au féminin : stratégie pour développer des conseils et sa visibilité

Les femmes vont donc être progressivement appelées en nombre de plus en plus important à exercer leurs talents au sein des postes-phares des sociétés et des établissements des secteurs privés et publics pour lesquels jusqu’alors les hommes avaient tendance à se coopter parce qu’ils fréquentaient les mêmes réseaux et possédaient les mêmes codes. Ainsi, dans le secteur privé, la part des …