Étiquette : CA

En reprise | Quelle est la raison d’être d’une entreprise ? Comment opère la gouvernance ?


Quelle est la raison d’être d’une entreprise sur le plan juridique ? À qui doit-elle rendre des comptes ?

Une entreprise est-elle au service exclusif de ses actionnaires ou doit-elle obligatoirement considérer les intérêts de ses parties prenantes (stakeholders) avant de prendre des décisions de nature stratégiques ?

On conviendra que ces questions ont fréquemment été abordées dans ces pages. Cependant, la réalité de la conduite des organisations semble toujours refléter le modèle de la primauté des actionnaires, mieux connu maintenant sous l’appellation « démocratie de l’actionnariat ».

L’article de Martin Lipton* fait le point sur l’évolution de la reconnaissance des parties prenantes au cours des quelque dix dernières années.

Je crois que les personnes intéressées par les questions de gouvernance (notamment les administrateurs de sociétés) doivent être informées des enjeux qui concernent leurs responsabilités fiduciaires.

Bonne lecture. ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.

 

The Purpose of the Corporation

 

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « actionnaires définition »

 

 

Whether the purpose of the corporation is to generate profits for its shareholders or to operate in the interests of all of its stakeholders has been actively debated since 1932, when it was the subject of dueling law review articles by Columbia law professor Adolf Berle (shareholders) and Harvard law professor Merrick Dodd (stakeholders).

Following “Chicago School” economics professor Milton Friedman’s famous (some might say infamous) 1970 New York Times article announcing ex cathedra that the social responsibility of a corporation is to increase its profits, shareholder primacy was widely viewed as the purpose and basis for the governance of a corporation. My 1979 article, Takeover Bids in the Target’s Boardroom, arguing that the board of directors of a corporation that was the target of a takeover bid had the right, if not the duty, to consider the interests of all stakeholders in deciding whether to accept or reject the bid, was widely derided and rejected by the Chicago School economists and law professors who embraced Chicago School economics. Despite the 1985 decision of the Supreme Court of Delaware citing my article in holding that a board of directors could take into account stakeholder interests, and over 30 states enacting constituency (stakeholder) statutes, shareholder primacy continued to dominate academic, economic, financial and legal thinking—often disguised as “shareholder democracy.”

While the debate continued and stakeholder governance gained adherents in the new millennium, shareholder primacy continued to dominate. Only since the 2008 financial crisis and resulting recession has there been significant recognition that shareholder primacy has been a major driver of short-termism, encourages activist attacks on corporations, reduces R&D expenditures, depresses wages and reduces long-term sustainable investments—indeed, it promotes inequality and strikes at the very heart of our society. In the past five years, the necessity for changes has been recognized by significant academic, business, financial and investor reports and opinions. An example is the 2017 paper I and a Wachtell Lipton team prepared for the World Economic Forum, The New Paradigm: A Roadmap for an Implicit Corporate Governance Partnership Between Corporations and Investors to Achieve Sustainable Long-Term Investment and Growth, which quotes or cites many of the others.

This year we are seeing important new support for counterbalancing shareholder primacy and promoting long-term sustainable investment. Among the many prominent examples is the January 2018 annual letter from Larry Fink, Chairman of BlackRock, to CEOs:

Without a sense of purpose, no company, either public or private, can achieve its full potential. It will ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders. It will succumb to short-term pressures to distribute earnings, and, in the process, sacrifice investments in employee development, innovation, and capital expenditures that are necessary for long-term growth. It will remain exposed to activist campaigns that articulate a clearer goal, even if that goal serves only the shortest and narrowest of objectives. And ultimately, that company will provide subpar returns to the investors who depend on it to finance their retirement, home purchases, or higher education.

This was followed in March by the report of a commission appointed by the French Government recommending amendment to the French Civil Code to add, “The company shall be managed in its own interest, considering the social and environmental consequences of its activity,” following the existing, “All companies shall have a lawful purpose and be incorporated in the common interest of the shareholders.” The draft amendment is intended to establish the principle that each company should pursue its own interest—namely, the continuity of its operation, sustainability through investment, collective creation and innovation. The report notes that this amendment integrates corporate and social responsibility considerations into corporate governance and goes on to state that each company has a purpose not reducible to profit and needs to be aware of its purpose. The report recommends an amendment to the French Commercial Code for the purpose of entrusting the boards of directors to define a company’s purpose in order to guide the company’s strategy, taking into account its social and environmental consequences.

Also in March, the European Commission in its Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growthproposed both corporate governance and investor stewardship requirements:

Subject to the outcome of its impact assessment, the Commission will table a legislative proposal to clarify institutional investors’ and asset managers’ duties in relation to sustainability considerations by Q2 2018. The proposal will aim to (i) explicitly require institutional investors and asset managers to integrate sustainability considerations in the investment decision-making process and (ii) increase transparency, towards end-investors on how they integrate such sustainability factors in their investment decisions in particular as concerns their exposure to sustainability risks.

Further, the Commission proposes a number of other laws or regulations designed to promote ESG, CSR and sustainable long-term investment.

In addition to these examples, there are similar policy statements by major investors and similar efforts at legislation to modulate or eliminate shareholder primacy in Great Britain and the United States. While it is not certain that any legislation will soon be enacted, it is clear that the problems have been identified, support is growing to find a way to address them and if implicit stakeholder governance does not take hold, legislation will ensue to assure it.

_____________________________________

*Martin Lipton is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton publication by Mr. Lipton.

Rôle du CA dans l’établissement d’une forte culture organisationnelle | Une référence essentielle


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un document partagé par Joanne Desjardins*, qui porte sur le rôle du CA dans l’établissement d’une solide culture organisationnelle.

C’est certainement l’un des guides les plus utiles sur le sujet. Il s’agit d’une référence essentielle en matière de gouvernance.

Je vous invite à lire le sommaire exécutif. Vos commentaires sont appréciés.

 

Managing Culture | A good practical guide – December 2017

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « tone at the top »

Executive summary

 

In Australia, the regulators Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) have both signalled that there are significant risks around poor corporate culture. ASIC recognises that culture is at the heart of how an organisation and its staff think and behave, while APRA directs boards to define the institution’s risk appetite and establish a risk management strategy, and to ensure management takes the necessary steps to monitor and manage material risks. APRA takes a broad approach to ‘risk culture’ – includingrisk emerging from a poor culture.

Regulators across the globe are grappling with the issue of risk culture and how best to monitor it. While regulators generally do not dictate a cultural framework, they have identified common areas that may influence an organisation’s risk culture: leadership, good governance, translating values and principles into practices, measurement and accountability, effective communication and challenge, recruitment and incentives. Ultimately, the greatest risk lies in organisations that are believed to be hypocritical when it comes to the espoused versus actual culture.

The board is ultimately responsible for the definition and oversight of culture. In the US, Mary Jo White, Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), recognised that a weak risk culture is the root cause of many large governancefailures, and that the board must set the ‘tone at the top’.

Culture also has an important role to play in risk management and risk appetite, and can pose significant risks that may affect an organisation’s long-term viability.

However, culture is much more about people than it is about rules. This guide argues that an ethical framework – which is different from a code of ethics or a code of conduct – should sit at the heart of the governance framework of an organisation. An ethical framework includes a clearly espoused purpose, supported by values and principles.

There is no doubt that increasing attention is being given to the ethical foundations of an organisation as a driving force of culture, and one method of achieving consistency of organisational conduct is to build an ethical framework in which employees can function effectively by achieving clarity about what the organisation deems to be a ‘good’ or a ‘right’ decision.

Culture can be measured by looking at the extent to which the ethical framework of the organisation is perceived to be or is actually embedded within day-to-day practices. Yet measurement and evaluation of culture is in its early stages, and boards and senior management need to understand whether the culture they have is the culture they want.

In organisations with strong ethical cultures, the systems and processes of the organisation will align with the ethical framework. And people will use the ethical framework in the making of day-to-day decisions – both large and small.

Setting and embedding a clear ethical framework is not just the role of the board and senior management – all areas can play a role. This publication provides high-level guidance to these different roles:

The board is responsible for setting the tone at the top. The board should set the ethical foundations of the organisation through the ethical framework. Consistently, the board needs to be assured that the ethical framework is embedded within the organisation’s systems, processes and culture.

Management is responsible for implementing and monitoring the desired culture as defined and set by the board. They are also responsible for demonstrating leadership of the culture.

Human resources (HR) is fundamental in shaping, reinforcing and changing corporate culture within an organisation. HR drives organisational change programs that ensure cultural alignment with the ethical framework of the organisation. HR provides alignment to the ethical framework through recruitment, orientation, training, performance management, remuneration and other incentives.

Internal audit assesses how culture is being managed and monitored, and can provide an independent view of the current corporate culture.

External audit provides an independent review of an entity’s financial affairs according to legislative requirements, and provides the audit committee with valuable, objective insight into aspects of the entity’s governance and internal controls including its risk management.

 

 

*Joanne Desjardins est administratrice de sociétés et consultante en gouvernance. Elle possède plus de 18 années d’expérience comme avocate et comme consultante en gouvernance, en stratégie et en gestion des ressources humaines. Elle est constamment à l’affût des derniers développements en gouvernance et publie des articles sur le sujet.

Mesures à prendre en matière de contrôle interne afin d’éviter les fraudes de cybersécurité


Voici un article qui met l’accent sur les mesures à prendre en matière de contrôle interne afin d’éviter les fraudes de cybersécurité.

Les auteurs, Keith Higgins*et Marvin Tagabanis exposent les résultats de leurs recherches dans un billet publié sur le site de  Havard Law School Forum.

Les fraudes dont il est question concernent neuf entreprises qui ont été la cible des arnaques par l’utilisation de courriels.

The nine defrauded companies lost a total of nearly $100 million as a result of the email scams. The companies operated in different business sectors including technology, machinery, real estate, energy, financial, and consumer goods, which the Report suggests “reflect[s] the reality that every type of business is a potential target of cyber-related fraud.” The Report also highlighted the significant economic harm posed by “business email compromises” more broadly, which, based on FBI estimates, has caused over $5 billion in losses since 2013, with an additional $675 million in adjusted losses in 2017—the highest estimated out-of-pocket losses from any class of cyber-facilitated crime during this period.

Les auteurs notent que les escroqueries par le biais des courriels étaient principalement de deux types :

(1) Courriels envoyés par de faux dirigeants ;

(2) Courriels envoyés par de faux vendeurs.

Les auteurs présentent les implications du contrôle interne pour minimiser ces fraudes.

Bonne lecture !

 

Implementing Internal Controls in Cyberspace—Old Wine, New Skins

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « contrôle interne et cybersécurité »

 

On October 16, 2018, the SEC issued a Section 21(a) investigative report (the “Report”), [1]cautioning public companies to consider cyber threats when designing and implementing internal accounting controls. The Report arose out of an investigation focused on the internal accounting controls of nine public companies that were victims of “business email compromises” in which perpetrators posed as company executives or vendors and used emails to dupe company personnel into sending large sums to bank accounts controlled by the perpetrators. In the investigation, the SEC considered whether the companies had complied with the internal accounting controls provisions of the federal securities laws. Although the Report is in lieu of an enforcement action against any of the issuers, the SEC issued the Report to draw attention to the prevalence of these cyber-related scams and as a reminder that all public companies should consider cyber-related threats when devising and maintaining a system of internal accounting controls.

The nine defrauded companies lost a total of nearly $100 million as a result of the email scams. The companies operated in different business sectors including technology, machinery, real estate, energy, financial, and consumer goods, which the Report suggests “reflect[s] the reality that every type of business is a potential target of cyber-related fraud.” The Report also highlighted the significant economic harm posed by “business email compromises” more broadly, which, based on FBI estimates, has caused over $5 billion in losses since 2013, with an additional $675 million in adjusted losses in 2017—the highest estimated out-of-pocket losses from any class of cyber-facilitated crime during this period.

Two types of email scams were employed against the nine companies: (i) emails from fake executives, and (ii) emails from fake vendors.

Emails from Fake Executives. In the first type of scam, perpetrators emailed company finance personnel using spoofed email domains and addresses of an executive (typically the CEO) so that it appeared as if the email were legitimate. The spoofed email directed the employees to work with a purported outside attorney identified in the email, who then directed them to wire large payments to foreign bank accounts controlled by the perpetrators. Common elements among each of these schemes included: (1) the transactions or “deals” were time-sensitive and confidential; (2) the requested funds needed to be sent to foreign banks and beneficiaries in connection with foreign deals or acquisitions; and (3) the spoofed emails typically were sent to midlevel personnel, who were not generally responsible or involved in the deals and rarely communicated with the executives being spoofed.

Emails from Fake Vendors. The second type of scam was more technologically sophisticated than the spoofed executive emails because the schemes typically involved the perpetrators hacking into the email accounts of the companies’ foreign vendors. The perpetrators then requested that the vendors’ banking information be changed so that a company’s payments on outstanding invoices for legitimate transactions were sent to foreign accounts controlled by the perpetrators rather than the real vendors. The Report noted that some spoofed vendor email scams went undetected for an extended period of time because vendors often afforded companies months before considering a payment delinquent.

Considerations for Public Companies

In the Report, the SEC advises public companies to “pay particular attention to the obligations imposed by Section 13(b)(2)(B) to devise and maintain internal accounting controls that reasonably safeguard company and, ultimately, investor assets from cyber-related frauds.” Finance and accounting personnel at public companies should be aware that the above-described cyber-related scams exist, and these types of scams should be considered when implementing internal accounting controls.

Although the “cyber” aspect of these scams helps to make them a topic du jour, fake invoices are certainly no recent invention, nor are vendor requests to direct payments to a new address something that is unique to the email era. If the result of the Report is to cause companies to liberally insert “cyber” references into their internal controls, and little more, it will not have accomplished its objective. SEC Enforcement staff observed that the cyber-related frauds succeeded, at least in part, because the responsible personnel at the companies did not sufficiently understand the company’s existing controls or did not recognize indications in the emailed instructions that those communications lacked reliability. For example, in one matter, the accounting employee who received the spoofed email did not follow the company’s dual-authorization requirement for wire payments, directing unqualified subordinates to sign-off on the wires. In another case, the accounting employee misinterpreted the company’s authorization matrix as giving him approval authority at a level reserved for the CFO.

Scams will always be with us, and the Report recognizes that the effectiveness of internal accounting control systems largely depends on having trained personnel to implement, maintain, and follow such controls. Public companies should also consider the following points raised by the actions taken by the defrauded companies following the cyber-related scams:

Review and enhance payment authorization procedures, verification requirements for vendor information changes, account reconciliation procedures and outgoing payment notification processes, particularly to foreign jurisdictions.

Evaluate whether finance and accounting personnel are adequately trained on relevant cyber-related threats and provide additional training on any new policies and procedures implemented as a result of the above step.

The Report confirms that the SEC remains focused on cybersecurity matters and companies should continue to be vigilant against cyber threats. While the SEC stated that it was “not suggesting that every issuer that is the victim of a cyber-related scam is . . . in violation of the internal accounting controls requirements of the federal securities laws,” the Report also noted that “[h]aving internal accounting control systems that factor in such cyber-related threats, and related human vulnerabilities, may be vital to maintaining a sufficient accounting control environment and safeguarding assets.”

_________________________________________________

Endnotes

1Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Regarding Certain Cyber-Related Frauds Perpetrated Against Public Companies and Related Internal Accounting Controls Requirements, Exchange Act Release No. 84429 (Oct. 16, 2018) (available here).(go back)

*Keith Higgins is chair of the securities and governance practice and Marvin Tagaban is an associate at Ropes & Gray LLP. This post is based on their Ropes & Gray memorandum.

Cinq questionnements qui préoccupent les nouveaux administrateurs de sociétés | SpencerStuart


Aujourd’hui, je reviens sur un texte vraiment très important de SpencerStuart qui propose des conseils aux nouveaux administrateurs qui acceptent de siéger à des conseils d’administration, peu importe le type d’organisation.

Les conseils prodigués par les auteurs George Anderson, Tessa Bamford, Jason Baumgarten, Kevin A. Jurd, afin d’accélérer l’efficacité des nouveaux administrateurs peuvent se résumer essentiellement à cinq grandes préoccupations :

  1. Comment puis-je savoir si je choisis le bon CA ? Quels devoirs dois-je accomplir avant d’accepter une offre ?
  2. Comment dois-je me préparer pour ma première réunion du conseil ?
  3. Quels comportements en matière de prises de parole dois-je adopter lors de cette première rencontre ?
  4. Quelles sont les stratégies à adopter pour avoir un impact et une plus-value sur le CA et sur l’entreprise ?
  5. Si j’expérimente une grande préoccupation, comment montrer mon désaccord ou soulever une question délicate ?

 

À l’heure où environ le tiers des postes d’administrateurs sont occupés par de nouvelles recrues, il est crucial de bien explorer les occasions qui se présentent, car un engagement comme administrateur peut nous occuper plus de 20 jours par année, pour une période de neuf ans !

Je vous invite donc à lire attentivement ce document si vous êtes dans votre première année d’un mandat qui pourrait être assez long.

Bonne lecture !

 

The Five Most Common New Director Questions

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « spencer stuart »

 

 

No matter how experienced they are as leaders or how much previous boardroom exposure they have had, most first-time directors will admit to having some trepidation before their first board meeting: What will the first board meeting be like? Should I say anything at all in my first meeting? Am I prepared?

Helping these directors quickly acclimate matters because, depending on the country, first-timers can represent a sizable share of the new director population in a given year. One-third of newly appointed S&P 500 directors in the U.S., for example, are serving on their first corporate board, as are about 30 percent of new U.K. non-executive directors. Given the escalating demands on boards, new directors must be prepared to quickly contribute.

In working with first-time board directors around the world and the chairmen and lead independent directors of the boards they join, we have found that their questions and concerns about board experience typically fall into the five following areas:

  1. How do I know what’s the right board to join? Should I say yes to the first board invitation?
  2. What do I need to do to prepare for my first board?
  3. How much should I speak up during the early board meetings?
  4. How can I have an impact for the board and company?
  5. What if I have concerns? How do I disagree or raise questions when I’m new?

To explore these first-time director questions in more detail, we spoke with directors around the world who shared what they learned from their first board experience and offered observations that boards can use to enhance their new director onboarding programs.

 

(1) Selecting the right opportunity

 

Most directors would describe their first non-executive board role as a major professional milestone, a terrific growth opportunity and something they are very glad they did, even though it represented a significant commitment. Given the demands of board service — 20-30 days a year up to nine or more years — it pays to carefully weigh the pros and cons of a given opportunity. The key question, say directors, is whether it is mutually beneficial — one that the prospective director finds engaging and useful as a growth opportunity and that adds a valuable perspective to the board. As one director put it, “You need something that will bind you to the job, because it is a lot of time.” Ask yourself, “Is this a business that I will still be interested in, say, in six to nine years’ time?”

Other considerations may be who else is on the board — especially the opportunity to work with a good chair and gain exposure to experienced executives from other industries — the strength and diversity of the management team, and how well the board and management team work together, which in part reflects how much the CEO values the board’s contribution. “I asked the CEO, ‘Do you like having a board?’ And he very honestly said, ‘Mostly.’ If he’d said to me, ‘I think they’re marvelous all the time,’ I’d know he was lying because that’s just not how executives think,” recalls one director.

When considering whether you can balance board service with other commitments, particularly if you have a full-time executive role, understand that you will likely underestimate how much time it will take, especially early on. “It took much more time than I thought would be required initially to get up to speed — to understand the business, strategies, key issues and opportunities,” one director told us. If you have to travel to meetings, plan on that adding a day or two to the board meeting commitment. You also should allow time for work related to committee assignments and, depending on your expertise, you may be tapped to mentor someone on the executive team, work on issues outside of board meetings or respond to unexpected demands related to a crisis or deal. “It can be hard to budget for that, and it can happen at the worst time. But you can’t shake off your responsibilities at the time when you’re needed most, when there’s an activist or stakeholder issue, a significant transition or a succession planning issue that you have to work through.”

Conversely, don’t immediately take yourself out of the running for a very valuable opportunity. “If I thought too much about the time commitment, there is a chance I would have turned it down, which would have been a terrible thing,” one director told us. Equally do your research; it’s amazing the sorts of businesses that initially might seem not right for you but on further research are really interesting and worth pursuing.

 

(2) Preparing for the first board meeting

 

As part of your due diligence, you will already have read published information about the company, and it goes without saying that new directors will have received a wealth of material as part of the onboarding process and in advance of the first meeting. What many don’t appreciate before they’ve done it is just how much pre-reading material there can be, and the amount of time it can take to thoroughly digest it.

Many first-time directors have presented to their own company’s board of directors, but these encounters provide just a narrow glimpse of the board’s responsibilities. For this reason, some first-time directors find it helpful to attend a formal director education program providing a deep dive into corporate governance, including the board’s fiduciary responsibilities and areas such as NED liability, reporting to shareholders and reporting on sustainability. “They expect you to have an understanding of governance when you come in. They’re happy to answer questions, but they’re not going to know what you don’t know. If you don’t even know what you don’t know, then you don’t know to ask,” said one director.

Most formal onboarding programs encourage new directors to meet with key members of management, and many will schedule site visits to key operations. “It was really helpful to spend quality time with each of the CEO’s main direct reports so that I could get a sense of their top priorities and how they think about running their businesses. Without that little additional context from some of these executives in the organization, you’re really operating in a bubble.”

One-on-one meetings with as many of other directors as possible before the first board meeting can provide a sense of the priorities of the board, and the dynamics among directors and between management and the board. When these meetings are not an explicit part of the onboarding process, it can feel awkward to reach out to other board members, but directors say arranging a breakfast or dinner meeting or even a coffee with other directors, starting with committee chairs, is well worth it. “Everybody is busy, but the time you take to meet people upfront definitely pays dividends in the long run because you get context you wouldn’t have gotten any other way. You can’t replace seeing someone’s facial expression or their gestures while they’re talking about a certain topic. You’ll see how much something worries them. How emphatic they’re being. You’ll see their brow wrinkle when you dig deeper into certain issues.”

What else did new directors find most helpful in preparing for their first board meetings?

The key performance indicators (KPIs) and lead indicators for the company. “What do I have to keep my eye on? Every other question ends up stemming from those KPIs.”

A glossary of company and industry-specific jargon and acronyms. “Many companies overlook this, but it’s a real impediment to being productive in your first couple of meetings.”

Meeting with as many members of the executive committee or senior management team as possible.

Understand how the board views sector and company risk. How does management assess, present and articulate risk? Are assumptions discussed and challenged clearly and freely?

A detailed overview of the operations, operational challenges and underlying infrastructure. “You can think you know how an airline runs, but when you walk through the operation center and see hundreds of people managing thousands of flights in the air at the same time around the world, you begin to understand the complexity of the business.”

A holistic view of the board calendar and activities — not just what the next board meeting is about, but the key processes of the board over the course of 12 months of board meetings. “When you’re new, you might wonder why the board isn’t talking about the compensation implication of a decision, as an example, but everyone else knows that’s because the next meeting is the one when the board does the comp review.”

A detailed explanation of how the finances are organized, including a complete listing of accounts in an accounting system. “Everybody’s chart of accounts is different. Depending on how it’s drawn, you can get a very different look at P&L.”

 

Spotlight: Director induction best practices

 

Most boards have a formal induction program, which typically includes the following:

Presentations from management on the business model, profitability and performance

A review of the previous 12 months’ board papers and minutes to provide context on the current issues

Meetings with key business executives and functional leaders, including finance, marketing, IT, HR, etc.

Site visits providing new directors a better sense of how the business works and an opportunity to meet people on the ground

Meetings with external advisers such as accountants, bankers, brokers and others

Explanation of regulatory and governance issues

Attendance at an investor day

Mentoring: First-time directors, especially, tell us they appreciate having a mentor during the first six to 12 months on the board. An informal mentor program pairs a new director with a more experienced director who can provide perspective on boardroom activities and dynamics or help with meeting preparation, explain aspects of board papers, and debrief and act as a sounding board between meetings.

What new directors can do: Don’t be afraid to ask for the process to be tailored to your needs if you want to explore certain areas of the business in greater depth.

(3) Participating in early meetings

 

First-time directors tend to assume that they should say little during their first few meetings, while they observe and get to know the board and its dynamics. The directors we spoke with recommend a more balanced approach: listen more than talk, but be willing to participate in the discussion, especially in your area of expertise. “You’re there for a reason. You’re there because they thought you could add value.” New directors appreciate getting feedback from the board chair or lead director about their contribution level — so, if it’s not given, directors should ask for it. “After the first meeting, the lead director said, ‘I’m glad you spoke up a couple times. Do that more. We brought you here to get your point of view so feel free to speak up.’ It was great to hear that. You never want to hear it the other way, where you spoke up too much or took up too much air time.”

Nothing is more valuable for getting a sense of the board dynamics and directors’ expectations for how you should behave in those early meetings than one-on-one discussions with individual board members. “I wanted to get to know them a little bit personally before meetings where more-involved or controversial topics would be discussed so that we at least have met and have a little bit of an understanding of one another.”

New directors also appreciate when the board chair or lead independent director is proactive in making sure that the multiple voices are heard in board discussions. “Even when the board composition is diverse along many dimensions, your work isn’t done. You still have to actively work to avoid conforming your behaviors and opinions and to hear diverse viewpoints. That’s a constant work in progress.”

 

(4) Having an impact

 

“How do I have impact?” It’s a question that is top of mind for most new directors, especially those who were brought on the board because of their expertise in areas such as digital technology, product development, risk management or go-to-market experience. Depending on the size of the company and experience of the management team, a new director’s involvement outside the boardroom could include interviewing candidates for key roles, mentoring senior leaders, advising on specific topics or making useful introductions. “Engagement has to be on the terms that work for the executive team,” advised one of the directors we interviewed.

New directors with specialized expertise also play a role in educating other directors. “You don’t want a situation where the rest of the board sits back while all the questions flow to one person. Over time, all directors want to learn how to ask challenging questions in these areas. I find that other directors ask me questions like: ‘Why did you ask that? Why did you put the question in this way? What were you looking for? There seems to be something in the response to that question that troubles you, so let’s peel that apart a little bit.’”

First-time directors can find it challenging to know if they are having a positive impact on the board — and that the board is positively contributing to the business — because of the lack of regular feedback. “I would like a little more focus on making performance feedback a continuous process, particularly for the first six to 12 months. Following every meeting, there should be opportunities to point to out what’s working well and what could work differently, even if it’s just a 10- or 15-minute conversation to reinforce and correct the issues that didn’t go well in context.” So it is important to ask the chairman for feedback.

 

(5) Raising questions

 

By definition, a new director lacks perspective on the board’s history — the sacred cows, the topics that have been debated ad nauseam already and other important context. This makes knowing when to raise questions or to push for more information all the more difficult. “Fresh eyes are good, but one of the worst things you can do is walk into the board and hone in on topics that aren’t going to be productive, that the board has already hashed to death.” That is why it is important to have read the board minutes, if not papers, for the previous year or so, so you can understand some of the key issues and debates.

Getting a read from other directors about the board’s priorities can provide important context, as can using meeting breaks to follow up on your questions. “You’re not going to know everything going in. Expect that you’ve got a lot of holes. When I have big questions, I’ll grab a board member who I know will have the context and say, ‘Hey, I noticed this,’ or ‘I had a question on this,’ or ‘I’m sure there’s context here that I don’t know about,’ and just let them talk.”

When a director does have questions or concerns that go deeper, the delivery is important. “Asking questions, even when you know what the answer is, rather than making declarative statements is a good general approach. Other directors will be receptive to your questions if you communicate that you’re trying to get to the heart of important issues and facilitate discussion that needs to happen to gain consensus on direction.” How you frame questions also is important: Ask, “How are you thinking about …?” rather than trying to be too prescriptive and asking, “Have you considered …?”

 

Conclusion

 

Most new directors truly value their first board assignment, despite the time demands and steep learning curve. First-time directors are most likely to enjoy the experience when they conduct careful research and due diligence before accepting a board invitation, prepare thoroughly for board meetings and have the confidence to be themselves in the boardroom.

______________________________________________________________

Participating Directors :

Stewart Butel, former managing director of Wesfarmers Resources and independent director for DUET Company Limited
Amy L. Chang, CEO and founder of Accompany and non-executive director of Cisco, The Procter & Gamble Company and Splunk
Sue Clark, managing director of SABMiller Europe and non-executive director of Britvic
Greg Couttas, former Deloitte audit partner and non-executive director of Virtus Health
Tom Killalea, former Amazon vice president and independent director of Capital One, Carbon Black and MongoDB
George Mattson, former managing director of the Global Industrials Group for Goldman Sachs and independent director of Delta Air Lines
Admiral (Ret.) Gary Roughead, former chief of Naval Operations and independent director of Northrop Grumman Corporation
Michelle Somerville, former KPMG audit partner and independent director of The GPT Group and Challenger
Sybella Stanley, director of corporate finance at RELX and non-executive director at Tate & Lyle and Merchants Trust
Jane Thompson, former senior vice president of Match.com and independent director of Michael Kors
Gene Tilbrook, chair of The GPT Group Nomination and Remuneration Committee
Trae Vassallo, co-founder and managing director of Defy Partners and non-executive director of Telstra Corporation

Processus d’audit | Informations privilégiées et transactions privées


Voici une recherche de Daniel Taylor qui concerne les informations privées sur le processus d’audit qui peuvent faire l’objet de transactions privées.

Les conclusions sont assez claires à cet égard ; elles suggèrent plusieurs moyens pour se prémunir contre les conséquences indésirables.

The results suggest the audit process provides insiders with a temporary information advantage, and that insiders opportunistically time their trades to exploit this advantage.

La recherche est utile aux chercheurs en gouvernance qui se questionnent sur les transactions équitables pour les actionnaires et pour toutes les parties prenantes.

Également, l’auteur souhaite que les conseils d’administration restreignent les transactions de tous les administrateurs et des personnes impliquées dans le processus d’audit, aussi longtemps que les résultats ne soient pas divulgués publiquement.

Enfin, l’auteur formule certaines recommandations aux autorités de réglementation

Cet article est paru sur le site du Harvard Law School on Corporate Governance.

Bonne lecture !

 

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « inside trading »

 

 

Our paper examines insider trading in conjunction with the audit process. Audit reports—and the requirement that public companies file audited financial statements—are a cornerstone of modern financial reporting. While it is generally accepted that financial statement audits mitigate agency conflicts, managers and directors (hereafter “corporate insiders”) are typically aware of the contents of the audit report well in advance of the general public. Thus, although a key purpose of financial statement audits is to protect shareholders, an unintended consequence of the audit process is that it endows corporate insiders with a temporary information advantage. In this study, we examine whether corporate insiders exploit this advantage for personal gain and trade based on private information about audit findings.

The audit process represents a negotiation between the external auditor, management, and the board of directors. A typical audit entails planning and interim procedures during the year, year-end fieldwork around the earnings announcement, and culminates with the preparation of the final audit report. Throughout the audit process, the auditor is in frequent contact with management and the board, and provides continuous updates regarding preliminary findings, audit adjustments, and potential modifications to a standard unqualified audit report. The auditor formally briefs the board on the contents of the final report close to the date that the audit is finalized, or “audit report date” (PCAOB AS 1301). Importantly, this date is not known to the public until the audit findings are subsequently disclosed in the firm’s 10-K filing. Thus, by the very nature of the audit process, corporate insiders will be in possession of material non-public information related to audit findings prior to the 10-K filing.

We examine whether corporate insiders trade based on private information about audit findings using a standard short-window event study around the audit report date. The audit report date signifies the end of the audit, and serves as a reasonable proxy for the latest possible date at which corporate insiders are aware of the final audit findings (PCAOB AS 1301, 3110). Our tests focus on a subset of firms where the audit report date occurs after the earnings announcement and more than ten days prior to the 10-K filing. We focus on audit report dates after the earnings announcement in order to cleanly separate insider trading in conjunction with the audit report from insider trading in conjunction with the earnings announcement. We focus on audit report dates more than ten days prior to the 10-K to ensure insiders’ have the opportunity to trade prior to the public disclosure of the audit findings.

By examining insider trading in a tight window around the audit report date, our event study tests mitigate concerns that our results are attributable to either (a) the audit findings themselves being influenced by insider trading, or (b) omitted firm characteristics correlated with the audit findings. Evidence of a change in insider trading activity in a short window around the audit report date—when audit findings are known to insiders but not to the market—suggests insiders are trading based on private information about the contents of the audit report itself.

We find a pronounced spike in insider trading volume around the audit report date, and that audit reports containing a modified opinion trigger intense insider selling. Highlighting the non-public nature of the audit findings on the audit report date, we find no evidence of a capital market reaction on this date. The presence of significant insider trading activity, coupled with the absence of a capital market reaction, confirms that—in our sample—the audit report date represents a significant internal, non-public, information event.

We conduct an extensive battery of sensitivity tests. For example, we repeat our tests focusing exclusively on within firm-quarter variation in insider trading. To the extent that an omitted variable does not vary within a given firm-quarter (e.g., within Firm A’s 2009-Q4), this analysis controls for the omitted variable (e.g., quarterly performance, governance, growth opportunities, audit quality, reporting complexity, etc.). Focusing exclusively on the timing of trades within the firm-quarter, we continue to find that modified audit opinions trigger intense insider selling around the audit report. Although we cannot definitively rule out the possibility of a correlated omitted variable, we view this as highly unlikely—to explain these results, an omitted variable would have to (i) vary with the timing of insider trades within a given firm-quarter, (ii) vary with the timing of the audit report date within the firm-quarter, and (iii) vary with the audit opinion.

Collectively, our results are consistent with corporate insiders trading based on private information about audit findings. The results suggest the audit process provides insiders with a temporary information advantage, and that insiders opportunistically time their trades to exploit this advantage.

Our research question and findings should be of interest to academics, practitioners, and regulators. With respect to academics, our study extends a long line of auditing research. Our results provide novel evidence that corporate insiders exploit features of the audit process for personal gain. In this regard, our findings suggest a more nuanced understanding of the audit process and the extent to which it protects shareholders and mitigates agency conflicts.

With respect to practitioners—specifically boards and legal counsel—our findings underscore the need for meaningful insider trading policies that effectively limit the key personnel to trade prior to the public disclosure of the audit findings. For example, most firms have insider trading policies that restrict trading around the earnings announcement, but nonetheless allow trading in the intervening period between the earnings announcement and the public disclosure of the audit findings (e.g., Jagolinzer, Larcker, and Taylor, 2011). Boards might want to consider restricting the trade of all officers and directors involved with the audit until the audit findings are publicly disclosed.

With respect to regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Public Company Audit Oversight Board (PCAOB) are charged with protecting the interests of individual investors. Consequently, empirical evidence on how audits affect insider trading represents an important consideration in ongoing deliberations on auditing standards and auditing procedures. Our evidence highlights a potentially unintended consequence of audit standards aimed at improving the informativeness of audit reports—as the audit report becomes more informative, the incentives for insiders to front-run the report also increase. Our findings are particularly salient in the context of the new auditing standard that takes effect in fiscal 2019 (PCAOB-2017-01) and changes the audit report from a standardized opinion to one that includes detailed engagement-specific disclosures. We encourage auditors, boards, and regulators to scrutinize insider trades placed in conjunction with corporate audits.

The complete paper is available here.

____________________________________________

Daniel Taylor*est professeur associé à la Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Les pratiques émergentes à long terme


Voici un article que je ne peux passer sous silence tellement le travail de recherche de Brian Tomlinson* est exemplaire eu égard à l’exploration des pratiques émergentes à long terme.

Je vous invite à prendre connaissance des points soulevés dans cet article paru sur le site de Harvard Law School on Corporate Governance.

Bonne lecture !

 

Emerging Practice in Long-Term Plans

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « long terme »

 

 

Executive Summary

The information asymmetry between corporations and investors is particularly severe regarding long-term strategic plans: existing market infrastructure for disclosure is very short-term focused and underserves sources of long-term value creation. The CEO-delivered long-term plan gives corporations an opportunity to reorient disclosures to the long-term. The Strategic Investor Initiative provides comprehensive guidance to CEOs and their Investor Relations teams on the key components of a long-term plan—set out in our Investor Letter to CEOs.

Through feedback from institutional investors we have identified content elements essential to an effective investor-facing CEO-delivered long-term plan:

  1. Additive to existing disclosures: Add information to the public domain or provide additional context for existing disclosures.
  2. More than marketing—contextualized disclosures: A strategic plan narrative is not a recitation of good news stories. Initiatives should be contextualized to help investors assess their significance.
  3. Focused by materiality: A long-term plan should disclose information that is material to the operating performance and financial prospects of the business.
  4. Integrated discussion of material Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) issues: Part of an integrated discussion—not a silo or presented as a list of “awards.”
  5. Forward looking information: A long-term plan is an opportunity for a company to meaningfully talk about the future across a broad range of value-relevant topics, accompanied by goals, metrics and milestones.

Emerging Practice in Long-Term Plans—By Key Theme

In this paper we set out key themes that CEOs have addressed in their long-term plan presentations delivered at CEO Investor Forums convened by the Strategic Investor Initiative. We identify why each theme is an enduring subject of investor interest (and identified in our Investor Letter to CEOs) and provide examples from CEO presentations of content that was well-received by institutional investors. We also provide suggestions of key additions that CEOs can make to enhance the utility of disclosures on these key themes:

  1. Risk factors and mega-trends: Highlights presentations by Delphi and PG&E
  2. Corporate governance: Highlights presentations by Medtronic and Merck
  3. Capital allocation: Highlights the presentation by Becton Dickinson
  4. Human capital management: Highlights the presentation by Aetna
  5. Shareholder and stakeholder engagement: Highlights the presentations by Merck, Telia, and Prudential

We are delighted to feature Insights from FCLTGlobal in the corporate governance theme.

Introduction: The Long-Term Imperative

A gap exists between a corporation’s knowledge of its practices and prospects and the knowledge of its investors. Periodic disclosures are intended to reduce the level of this information asymmetry. This structural information gap between corporations and investors appears particularly severe regarding forward-looking information about a corporation’s long-term strategic plans—an issue long-term institutional investors are increasingly vocal about wanting companies to address.

Corporations endure, and often plan, over decades through long-term-focused management and strategic planning processes. Although a strategic plan can address periods of 3, 5, or 15 years, corporations tend to communicate in quarters (through the 10-Q and earnings call).

Some corporations do, of course, communicate with investors through a variety of other forums (in addition to the earnings call), including investor days, industry conferences, and, increasingly, common year-round bilateral engagements, in addition to mandatory disclosures such as the 10-K and voluntary disclosures, such as sustainability reports. However, the landscape of corporate communications with shareholders does not include a disclosure venue focused on long-term sustainable value creation. The existing market infrastructure for disclosure remains very short-term focused and the mix of information provided underserves sources of long-term value creation—to the continuing of frustration of long-term institutional investors.

Through our convening of CEO Investor Forums, we provide a venue for a curated conversation between leading CEOs and long-term investors to help plug an unmet need for information with a long-term time horizon and reorient capital markets toward the long term. To date, over 25 companies (representing over $2 trillion in market cap) have presented long-term plans at a CEO-Investor Forum to an investor audience representing in excess of $25 trillion in AUM.

In this paper, we set out examples of emerging practices in CEO-presented long-term plans, identify core investor content expectations, and highlight how CEOs are seeking to tackle key themes for improved corporate disclosure. We hope both investors and corporations find it useful.

Six Reasons Companies Should Share Their Long-Term Thinking

  1. To demonstrate that there is an effective long-term strategy
  2. To show that the company can anticipate and capitalize on mega-trends
  3. To help investors understand ESG issues “through the eyes of management”
  4. To encourage the C-Suite to reflect on the corporate ecosystem, including a consideration of its stakeholders
  5. To help inspire—and retain—both employees and investors over the long-term
  6. To foster leadership in corporate-shareholder communications

Adapted from “Far Beyond the Quarterly Call: CECP’s first CEO Investor Forum” published in the Journal of Applied Corporate Finance

SII’s Investor Letter to CEOs

In the Strategic Investor Initiative’s Investor Letter to CEOs, signed by Bill McNabb and nine leading institutional investors, we ask CEOs to present their long-term plans for sustainable value creation at our CEO Investor Forums.

The letter asks CEOs to: set out a long-term plan with a five-year trajectory accompanied by goals, metrics and milestones; offer commentary on the role of the board in formulating and monitoring strategy; discuss financially material risks and the firm’s framework for identifying material ESG risks; and review the company’s capital allocation strategy.

The Themes of the Seven Questions Every CEO Should Be Able to Answer

How Do These Themes Connect to Long-Term Strategy:

  1. Risk factors and mega-trends
  2. Corporate purpose and role in society
  3. Frameworks for shareholder engagement
  4. Financially material business issues and frameworks for identifying those issues
  5. Human capital management
  6. Board composition
  7. Role of the board

Investor Feedback: Helping CEOS Meet Investors’ Content Expectations

CEO-delivered long-term plans can help plug a gap in existing market infrastructure and help meet the information needs of long-term investors. To date, we’ve received feedback, both in person and online, from hundreds of institutional investors on the long-term plans presented at CEO Investor Forums. We asked these investors to identify in each CEO presentation the themes that were most useful and the themes that were least useful for informing their investment outlook, voting, and engagement activities.

Building on this investor feedback, we have identified content elements essential to an effective investor-facing long-term plan—in addition to the expectations set out in our Investor Letter to CEOs:

Additive to existing disclosures: A long-term plan should add information to the public domain or provide additional contextualizing commentary to such existing disclosures (e.g., build on disclosures made at the investor day or in other disclosure forums).

More than marketing—Contextualized disclosures: a strategic plan narrative is not a recitation of good news stories. A long-term plan presentation is an opportunity to delineate key risks and challenges facing the business and to help investors see those issues “through the eyes of management,” given management’s “unique perspective on its business that only it can present.” Highlighting key initiatives within the business is useful for expanding investor understanding. However, to avoid being dismissed as marketing, such initiatives should be contextualized to help investors assess their significance within the business.

Focused by materiality—A long-term plan should disclose information that is material to the operating performance and financial prospects of the business over the long term. Material business issues tend to vary systematically by sector, giving management an opportunity to provide a focused presentation on issues of enduring investor interest and relevance for that sector. The disclosure framework provided by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) gives corporations a method to identify and organize such disclosures in a way relevant to investors.

Integrated discussion of material ESG issues—These issues are widely acknowledged as core to business success over the long term. As a result, ESG issues should be part of an integrated discussion—not be placed in a silo or presented as list of “awards.”

Forward looking information—Corporate disclosure abounds with backward-looking information. A long-term plan is an opportunity for a company to meaningfully talk about the future across a broad range of value-relevant topics, accompanied by goals, metrics, and milestones.

Least Useful CEO Disclosures

  1. Disclosures unconnected to long-term strategy
  2. Sustainability presented as a silo or eye-catching initiatives without adequate context
  3. Extended commentary on the history of the corporation
  4. Discussions of “corporate purpose” unconnected to operations and strategy
  5. Extended discussion of issues immaterial to the industry or sector

Emerging Practice in Long-Term Plans: Early Evidence From a Year of CEO Investor Forums

The long-term plan is an experimental form. CEOs who have presented their corporations’ plans to date have been guided by our Investor Letter to CEOs—but they do have broad flexibility to set out their corporations’ authentic long-term narratives.

Set out below are key themes addressed in long-term plans presented at our CEO Investor Forums and examples of how companies have tackled those themes. In each case, we identify the broad market need for such information and why it is relevant to long-term-focused investors.

Risk Factors and Mega-Trends

Leading executives spend much of their time addressing long-term business issues and strategy with their teams—and increasingly with their boards. Such thinking requires a consideration of the mega-trends impacting the operating model, product markets, and geographies in which their company operates. Capitalizing on these long-range trends is a key informing context for the development of a corporation’s strategic plan and the capital allocation decisions that will enable the plan to be implemented.

To date, existing disclosures have not proved effective in enabling corporations to talk about these long-term, forward-looking trends with their investors—and, when disclosures are made on these topics, they tend to be of low utility to investors.

For example, the MD&A section of the 10-K 9 requires disclosures regarding “known trends and uncertainties.” In considering disclosure, the corporation is asked to assess the likelihood of the trend occurring and, if it is reasonably likely to occur, seek to quantify the potential impact of that trend. This gives a corporation an opportunity to reflect on long-range trends—information highly valuable to investors. The wide discretion provided by the two-part materiality determination significantly reduces the extent of such disclosures, which also tend to be static—with only a small percentage of firms making significant changes to MD&A language over time. Risk factor disclosures are also a requirement in the 10-K. Specific risk factor disclosures are decision-relevant to investors.

However, disclosures of risk factors often lack corporation-specific elements, tend toward generic or vague language—best characterized as boilerplate—drafted more as a litigation shield than as a medium through which to inform investors.

As a result, existing disclosures inadequately capture the elements and outcomes of the strategic planning process and often fail to address long-range trends (whether market, environmental or societal) in a manner useful to investors.

Mega-trends Identified at CEO Investor Forums: Investor Letter Question:
  1. The transition to a low-carbon economy (PG&E)
  2. Disruption and democratization of product markets (UPS)
  3. Aging societies (BD)
  4. Unsustainable health care systems (Aetna, Medtronic)
  5. Technology amplifying corporate risk from cybersecurity to reputation (Delphi)

 

 Mega-trends“What are the key risk factors and mega-trends (such as climate change) your business faces over the next three to seven years and how have these influenced corporate strategy?”

Mega-trends represent a formidable set of financial, operational, governance, and policy challenges; these cross-cutting issues vary in intensity by sector.

Kevin Clark of Delphi highlighted how the major disruptions of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, such as AI and drive-train electrification, are changing the nature of the automobile—and, consequently, the nature of the automobile technology business. Clark identified the mega-trends of “Safe, Green, and Connected” that are broadly impacting the automotive sector and sought to identify how trends were having impacts on long-term strategy across the business. One element identified was the extent to which new technology required significant adjustments in workplace skills and recruitment patterns. Delphi had responded to these new requirements through collaborations in “talent rich” recruitment markets among other initiatives.

Anthony Earley and Geisha Williams of PG&E structured their presentations in the context of the transition to a low-carbon economy in both energy generation and transport and highlighted how that trend was driven by regulation, the urgency of climate change, and consumer demand. That overview was contextualized by commentary on PG&E’s science-based emission reduction targets and proportion of renewable energy in its overall energy generation mix. Both presentations set out comparisons of carbon intensity with peer utilities and identified the trajectory of future energy generation and use.

Examples of Key Issues for Discussion in “Mega-Trends and Key Risks”

Climate Change and Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD): In those sectors with large exposures to issues involved in climate change, investors expect a structured discussion on the implications of climate change.

The TCFD provides a four-part framework through which corporations can address climate change:

  1. Governance
  2. Strategy
  3. Risk management
  4. Metrics and targets

Commentary, structured around the operating model of the business, enables investors to assess whether climate change adaptation is being implemented at an adequate scale and the extent of exposures to related risks, such as regulatory change.

The extent of scenario analysis conducted and the assumptions underlying it gives investors critical visibility into a corporation’s preparedness for climate change under various scenarios. Given the board-centric view of many long-term investors, commentary around the governance arrangements for assessing and responding to climate risk is particularly well received.

Corporate Governance: Long-Term Strategy, Compensation, and Composition

Long-term investors are deeply interested in effective governance and high-quality boards. Shareholders have some agency here as the boards of directors of listed companies are appointed by shareholders. This focus on the board is also a product of the board’s key responsibility as overseer of long-term strategy, although recent work suggests that many public boards neglect this key strategic role and are mired in issues of compliance.

Expectations of the competence and workload of corporate boards have expanded significantly as institutional investors have taken increasingly clear positions on key corporate governance issues such as risk and strategy oversight, entrenchment, pay, tenure, refreshment, and diversity. Investors have also set out broad elements they expect to see in effective corporate governance practices, providing companies with key signals to reflect in their governance arrangements. This more assertive stance is partly driven by a concern that boards have been too passive, unwilling to interrogate the strategy of assertive management teams. Boards have also been identified as a source of short-term performance pressures.

At the CEO Investor Forums, long-term plans are presented by CEOs. Therefore, we ask the CEO to provide commentary on the role of the board (included in our Investor Letter to CEOs). A CEO’s stated understanding of the role expected of the board and its functioning will give investors valuable insights into how effectively a corporation is governed and the extent to which the board is meaningfully involved in strategy formation, oversight and challenge. In a CEO’s discussion of the long-term plan, what is useful is setting out a commentary on the way the board signals for management to take the long-term view—but employ language that isn’t a boilerplate description of formal corporate governance arrangements.

Investor Letter Question: Board’s Involvement in Strategy

How will the composition of your board (today and in the future) help guide the corporation to its long-term strategic goals?

What is the role of the board in setting corporate strategy, setting incentives for and overseeing management?

We note that a useful discussion of the role of the board in corporate strategy, incentives, and oversight could take many forms and that an effective board may have a variety of characteristics beyond a box-tick of observable formal elements.

Omar Ishrak provided an overview of Medtronic’s corporate governance practices. He described a board deeply immersed in the strategy of the business at the business unit level in addition to the overall strategy for the firm (at country-specific and global levels). He indicated that an effort had been made to limit the time spent on compliance issues at the full board level to enable discussion of strategy by business unit and region (which consumed 4-6 hours of every board meeting). Ishrak indicated that these were real, iterative discussions with business unit heads. This is vital commentary as one of the most valuable activities for a board is to debate within itself and with the CEO and senior management the appropriateness and effectiveness of strategy; increasing the likelihood that the board does not take a reflexively subordinate role to CEO and senior management but rather adopts a stance of “constructive support and engaged challenge.”

Ishrak talked about the value of diversity within Medtronic’s board and throughout the organization. This complemented similar discussions in the presentations by Ken Frazier (CEO and Chairman of Merck) and Alex Gorsky (CEO and Chairman of Johnson & Johnson) about the need for corporations operating in health care, pharmaceuticals and medical devices to maintain a significant proportion of the board dedicated to professionals with a science background.

Going Further with the Board

Is the board enabled to be effective on long-term strategy:

Investors want to know that boards are performing well and are engaged in meaningful discussions on long-term strategy and related risks. A CEO can spend valuable time explaining the governance structures and procedures the company uses to ensure meaningful strategy discussions:

  1. Is the full board and relevant board committees structured to facilitate strategy discussion? Is time carved out for strategy discussion?
  2. Does the board test the assumptions underlying strategy and with what frequency?
  3. How does the board monitor strategy implementation? Does it seek external views in testing strategy?
  4. How is the board’s composition, now and in the future, related to long-term strategy?

Insights From FCLTGlobal

FCLTGlobal, a member-supported not-for-profit organization dedicated to developing practical tools that encourage long-term business and investment behaviors, recently published, “Long-term Boards in a Short-term World,” outlining a set of potential tools to aid boards considering taking a longer-term approach.

Directors, as shareholders’ representatives and leaders of the company, typically with average tenures that exceed management, are uniquely positioned to keep a company focused on the distant horizon, setting an appropriate long-term tone for both corporate management and shareholders.

One of the hallmarks of a successful long-term board is direct engagement with long-term shareholders. Companies that have developed board-level relationships with their key shareholders, hearing from them regularly on not just governance topics but also matters related to strategy and investment, benefit from investors’ perspective—lending invaluable insight that serves as a counterpoint to the often short-term views presented by media, the sell-side, and transient or activist investors.

Practical solutions to enable board-level dialogue with shareholders include:

  1. Appointing a lead independent director or directors as shareholder relationship manager(s),
  2. Encouraging director attendance and availability for shareholder meetings and at events like investor days, and
  3. Having a published statement which spells out the Board’s belief of its duty to long-term shareholders.

Capital Allocation

Capital allocation is the fuel that enables strategy implementation—making the investments the strategic plan identifies as key to long-term performance. Corporations strive to maintain enduring capital allocation frameworks. However, these must be adaptable to allow the corporation to make critical long-term investments and capitalize on the competitive landscape, market, and mega-trends it faces.

A long-term plan is an opportunity to highlight those long-term investments that will take time to pay off and perhaps how those investments distinguish the corporation from its industry peers. Investors should be given a working understanding of those investments and be able to track progress against the strategy over time. In Q&A, investors have sought commentary on how CEOs think about capital allocation in the context of the current concerns regarding the extent, timing, and impact of share buy-backs.

Investor Letter Context: Capital Allocation

A corporation should communicate its view of key financially material risks, including long-range mega-trends and the relevant frameworks used to identify ESG factors. The majority of this discussion should focus on the strategy and resources allocated to address future risks.

Investors expect a CEO to outline the corporation’s framework for allocating capital and how that framework enables strategy implementation. CEOs at our Forums have presented such frameworks supplemented by long-range capital distribution goals such as maintaining the historic dividend trajectory.

Vince Forlenza of Becton Dickinson (BD) described how capital allocation and business-relevant stakeholder investments were the keys to the long-term success of his business. Forlenza provided a detailed discussion of the capital allocation framework, with specific dollar allocations to each segment. That set up the discussion of strategy, beginning with BD’s 2020 Sustainability Strategy and Goals—with sustainability discussed as a whole-firm concept. Taking a similar approach, Kevin Clark of Delphi embedded the discussion of capital allocation in the context of the “Safe, Green, and Connected” mega-trends identified earlier. This commentary was well received as it placed the capital allocation framework in the context of core strategy.

Building on These Presentations—The Pozen Framework

Enhancing the discussion of capital allocation through Senior Lecturer, MIT Sloan School of Management Robert Pozen’s capital allocation template:

For the next 3 to 5 years a corporation should outline the target percentage of its annual free cash flow allocated to the following:

Return to shareholders in the form of dividends (and share repurchases); and

Reinvest in the corporation for growth:

How much will be allocated to external growth via acquisitions (or how much will be funded by divestitures), even if this is a qualitative indication?

How much will be allocated to internal growth: i. R&D and innovation? ii. Major capital expenditures? iii. Human capital development? iv. Investments in other capitals or significant stakeholder groups as long-term system-health investments, investments in brand and reputation and in risk mitigation?

Human Capital Management

Human capital management is a key source of resilient business performance. As intangibles have become the dominant location of business value, how a business recruits, retains and incentivizes its people has become a value-relevant issue of investor interest.

Human capital management is an extremely broad topic for a CEO to address concisely in a long-term plan as it could include: high-level commentary on establishing and maintaining a strong organizational culture to support the firm’s mission and vision; Occupational Health and Safety compliance; or managing performance on key metrics such as training and development spend, employee turnover and employee engagement survey results. The picture is complicated further by effective human capital management tending not to rely on a single management technique or metric but rather a bundle of supportive practices that work together to drive value.

Corporations collect a wealth of human capital metrics for internal management purposes, much of which are not disclosed; regulatory requirements to disclose human capital are very limited.

Investors seek expanded disclosures on human capital. The Human Capital Management Coalition recently submitted a rule-making petition to the SEC to request that the Commission’s required disclosures be extended to include decision-useful information on human capital “policies, practices, and performance”. Investors such as BlackRock and Vanguard have identified human capital as a priority issue in their engagement strategies with investee companies. Index providers, including Thomson Reuters, have developed products (the Diversity & Inclusion Index is one) that acknowledge both the demand for good human capital practices and their value-relevance.

Given the complexity of the issue, a CEO must give priority to telling the corporation’s authentic human capital management story: how is the corporation investing in human capital? how does that relate to long-term strategy? what does the firm expect those investments to achieve in terms of improved performance?

Human Capital—Financially Material—The Evidence: Investor Letter Question:
  1. Companies identified as best to work for, outperform
  2. High-quality human capital management delivers enhanced returns
  3. Employee engagement correlated with performance
  4. Human capital analytics enable better performance
 Human Capital“How do you manage your future human capital requirements over the long term and how do you communicate your future human capital management plans to your investors?”

A valuable example was provided by Mark Bertolini of Aetna; he spoke about human capital in the context of developing a culture of health for employees, in addition to addressing pay equity, as keys to long-term business performance.

Bertolini identified how employee engagement surveys were uncovering a pattern of employees talking about the difficulties of their working lives. These lower-income employees tended to be on food stamps and Medicaid. Bertolini explained his decision to raise wages and reduce the health care costs of these workers. He then identified key costs and outcomes: $27 million cost in year one, 5,700 workers affected, on average 22% increase in disposable income. This initiative was combined with programs on mindfulness, tuition assistance, and life style practices associated with productivity (e.g., paying employees to get 8 hours of sleep a night). Bertolini indicated that these measures were associated with significant increases in employee engagement scores—but he emphasized that it was vital for management to “get beyond the spreadsheet” to understand the benefits (hard and soft) of such investments in human capital over the long term. This commentary provides investors with an understanding of management’s view of the business and some of its thinking about its people and how that relates to the operating performance and financial prospects of the business.

Meeting Investor Needs on Human Capital

Human capital is a material issue across industries, though the relevance of human capital-related factors can vary by sector. Investors have identified a variety of measures by which corporations can enhance their disclosure of human capital issues.

Nine broad categories of information were deemed fundamental to human capital analysis as a starting point to ongoing dialogue with investors:

Workforce demographics Workforce stability Workforce composition
Workforce skills and capabilities Workforce culture and empowerment Workforce health and safety
Workforce productivity Human rights Workforce compensation and incentives

Shareholder and Stakeholder Engagement

Shareholder expectations of the volume and quality of engagement with investee companies have expanded significantly. The Commonsense Corporate Governance Principles regard effective corporate governance as requiring constructive engagement between a company and its shareholders. This is reflected in companies taking more time to prepare directors for on-going engagements and relationship building with investors and devoting significant time and resources to such engagements. Investors use these year-round engagements to inform their investing outlook, voting, and future engagement activities—and expect companies to be responsive, to some extent, to these engagements.

Shareholders expect investee companies to develop a rigorous process and framework for managing shareholder engagement and responding to the themes on which meaningful investor engagement takes place. Corporations can take several approaches. However, it is key that they enable their shareholders to understand the approach and structure of investor engagement efforts—this allows investors to respond and coordinate their activities accordingly.

A long-term plan also gives a CEO an opportunity to reflect on the company’s relationship with its broader community of stakeholders. As a long-term plan is an investor-facing presentation, it is useful for a CEO to highlight the framework through which the corporation identifies which stakeholder interests are critical to the long-term success of the company and how the corporation seeks to manage those stakeholder relationships.

Investor Letter Question: Shareholder and Stakeholder Engagement

What is the corporation’s framework/strategies for interacting with its shareholders and key stakeholders?

Prudential’s presentation by Marc Grier, Chairman of the Board, outlined a set of leading corporate governance practices that it has adopted, including designating its Lead Independent Director as the primary point of engagement with shareholders. Prudential had also sought to describe its approach to shareholder engagement, quantify such engagement, and account for its outcomes in expanded proxy statement disclosures (identified as an example of best practice by the Council of Institutional Investors).

Corporations have taken different approaches to identifying key stakeholder interests and describing the business, strategy and governance implications of that effort. Merck’s CEO Ken Frazier described a stakeholder matrix in which more than 40 stakeholder issues were analyzed in the context of long-term business performance. Frazier identified how that matrix helped inform board-level strategy considerations—and had proved useful in guiding the long-term direction of the company.

Telia CEO Johan Dennelind explained how its board of directors had adopted a statement of significant audiences and materiality. Through this kind of statement, a board acknowledges a specific set of stakeholders (broader than shareholders) relevant to its future success and key material issues for its business. The statement is a new tool on the corporate reporting landscape. In addition to the benefits it offers a board in thinking through key issues and stakeholders, such a statement may help CEOs provide investors with an overview of how the corporation thinks about and manages material stakeholder interests.

__________________________________________________________

*Brian Tomlinson is Research Director of the Strategic Investor Initiative at CECP. This post is based on a CECP memorandum by Mr. Tomlinson. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Socially Responsible Firms by Alan Ferrell, Hao Liang, and Luc Renneboog (discussed on the Forum here) and Social Responsibility Resolutions by Scott Hirst (discussed on the Forum here).

Quelles sont les tendances eu égard à l’évaluation des conseils d’administration à l’échelle internationale ?


Voici un article très intéressant sur les tendances en évaluation des CA à l’échelle internationale.

Les auteurs, Mark Fenwick* et Erik P. M. Vermeulen, ont étudié l’état de la situation de l’évaluation des conseils dans 20 juridictions différentes qu’ils ont classifiées en 5 groupes, allant d’absence de législation, à des réglementations détaillées et explicites.

Dans l’ensemble, l’étude montre que les juridictions qui sont explicites eu égard aux meilleures pratiques en matière d’évaluation des conseils sont plus susceptibles d’adopter des processus d’évaluation efficaces. La législation et la réglementation ont un grand pouvoir d’influence sur les pratiques exemplaires.

Les auteurs retiennent un certain nombre de constats sur les meilleures pratiques en évaluation des CA :

 

(1) Although there is “no one-size-fits-all” solution, and the design of the evaluation should be tailored to meet the needs of the individual company and the particular circumstances of that company, board evaluation needs to be a continuous and on-going process rather than a periodic event.

(2) Evaluation should include not only compliance and risk-management competencies, but also skills and experience in business-related and organization-related areas, such as strategy, innovation, marketing, globalization, and growth.

(3) Regulator-issued “best practice” principles and guidelines should provide enough detail to offer genuine help to companies in implementing and evaluation processes, but also leave enough flexibility for companies to tailor the process to their specific needs. Additional guidelines need to provide more information about the criteria, methods, and form of the evaluation process (without compelling companies to make use of them).

(4) The board member or committee responsible for driving the evaluation process should actively involve external experts if, and when, necessary. In addition, “Legal Tech”, specifically board evaluation software and application, can help facilitate the assessment process.

(5) Boards should engage in a more open and detailed form of communication and disclosure about the evaluation process and its outcomes.

 

Bonne lecture !

 

Board Evaluation: International Practice

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « Board Evaluation: International Practice »
Corporate Governance Practice Framework

 

 

Although there is a broad consensus that we need “better corporate governance,” there is often less agreement as to what this actually means or how we might achieve it. Such uncertainties are hardly surprising. Contemporary corporate governance frameworks were significantly re-worked in the 2000s in response to a series of high-profile scandals. But these reforms appear to have had little effect on the performance of listed companies during the 2008 Financial Crisis. Moreover, the number, scale, and damage of corporate scandals and economic failures do not appear to be diminishing.

One possible reason for the poor performance of corporate governance measures has been an over-emphasis on the regulatory design of “checks-and-balances” in listed companies, rather than on the equally important question of how governance structures can add value to a firm. Our new paper, Evaluating the Board of Directors: International Practice, explores this latter issue, with particular reference to the role of boards and board evaluation.

In the conventional “checks and balances” model of corporate governance, authority and empowerment flow “downwards” from the shareholders (the legal and moral owners of a company) through the board of directors/supervisory board to the management and, eventually, employees. Corporate governance mechanisms are intended to curtail agency problems, notably those that arise between (potentially) self-interested management and investor-owners.

Since management is responsible to the board of directors or supervisory board that, in turn, owes a responsibility to the shareholders or owners of the firm, board members have also been heavily affected by the regulations that have been implemented over the last two decades. In particular, policymakers have emphasized the monitoring and oversight role of “independent” or “outside” directors as crucial in protecting shareholder interests and preventing self-interested transactions. In countries with controlling shareholders, which is common in Europe and Asia, board members are also expected to protect the interests of “minority investors” and other stakeholders in the company. This is deemed necessary because controlling block shareholders may engage in activities that are detrimental to the interests of minority shareholders or other stakeholders in the company.

As such, the dominant view of policymakers has been to treat the board as supervisor/monitors of the senior managers. In consequence, the board of directors has tended to focus on the control of management behavior and the monitoring of company past-performance and sustainability.

An alternative way of framing the issue, however, would be to move beyond a control perspective and recognize that a well-balanced board can be a competitive advantage for a company looking to create value and build its capacity for delivering innovation. Such a broader view can be found in the G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, for instance, or, more recently, The New Paradigm, A Roadmap for an Implicit Corporate Governance Partnership Between Corporations and Investors to Achieve Sustainable Long-Term Investment and Growth, issued on 2 September 2016 by the World Economic Forum.

Moreover, companies themselves, as well as their investors, now recognize that the “monitoring” role is no longer sufficient and that the model of board supervision and independence constitutes a missed opportunity. Instead, more innovative firms have integrated a diverse range of individuals onto their boards in the expectation that they will work in collaboration with the firm’s CEO and other senior managers in developing new business strategies. These directors can help a firm stay relevant via the inclusion of diverse perspectives that are directly relevant to a company’s core business operation. A more collaborative model of the relationship between the board and senior management (and the companies’ investors) ensures that these different perspectives are properly integrated into the decision-making processes in a way that can add genuine value to a firm’s business performance.

It is in this context that policymakers, regulators and companies seek to understand better the factors that impact the effectiveness of board performance. As a consequence, board evaluation and evaluation processes have become a key point of interest. In particular, many boards have recognized that it is vital for them to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of their performance on a regular basis. This has resulted in more attention to board evaluations in many jurisdictions. Again, this trend can be seen in the G20/OECD Corporate Governance Principles which recommend including regular board evaluations in a country’s corporate governance framework

As is often the case, however, the risk of regulatory initiatives aimed at forcing or “nudging” changes in corporate behavior is that it merely encourages “box-ticking” in which managing the appearance of compliance becomes the overriding objective. Resources devoted to managing an image of compliance and not substantive compliance are wasted, and the potential gains from meaningful compliance—in this case, effective board evaluation—are never realized.

Our paper, therefore, aims to evaluate regulatory measures aimed at promoting meaningful board evaluation. An empirical study of twenty different jurisdictions was conducted employing multiple criteria. The jurisdictions were classified into five groups ranging from no legal provision for board evaluation to jurisdictions with detailed rules and procedures.

The evidence presented in our paper seems to indicate that companies that are listed in countries with more specific principles and rules, as well as substantive guidance on “best practice” do tend to adopt more meaningful and open forms of board evaluation practice than their counterparts in jurisdictions with no or less detailed requirements, i.e., there seems to be evidence that “law matters” in this context.

As to what constitutes “best practice” in board evaluation the paper makes a number of findings and suggestions. Crucial amongst them are the suggestions that (1) Although there is “no one-size-fits-all” solution, and the design of the evaluation should be tailored to meet the needs of the individual company and the particular circumstances of that company, board evaluation needs to be a continuous and on-going process rather than a periodic event. (2) Evaluation should include not only compliance and risk-management competencies, but also skills and experience in business-related and organization-related areas, such as strategy, innovation, marketing, globalization, and growth. (3) Regulator-issued “best practice” principles and guidelines should provide enough detail to offer genuine help to companies in implementing and evaluation processes, but also leave enough flexibility for companies to tailor the process to their specific needs. Additional guidelines need to provide more information about the criteria, methods, and form of the evaluation process (without compelling companies to make use of them). (4) The board member or committee responsible for driving the evaluation process should actively involve external experts if—and when—necessary. In addition, “Legal Tech”—specifically board evaluation software and applications—can help facilitate the assessment process. (5) Boards should engage in a more open and detailed form of communication and disclosure about the evaluation process and its outcomes.

“Done right”, board evaluation has the potential to enhance a board’s supervisory functions but—just as importantly—it can allow a firm to identify (and fill) expertise gaps on the board and leverage the expertise of board members to improve firm performance by building strategic partnerships with executives and senior management.

The complete paper is available for download here.

*Mark Fenwick is a Professor at Kyushu University Graduate School of Law and Erik P. M. Vermeulen is Professor of Business & Financial Law at Tilburg University. This post is based on a recent paper by Professor Fenwick and Professor Vermeulen.

Quand les opinions d’un président de compagnie deviennent-elles un sujet de préoccupation pour le CA ? | Un cas pratique


Voici un cas publié, sur le site de Julie Garland McLellan, qui met l’accent sur une problématique particulière pouvant ébranler la réputation d’une entreprise.

Quand une déclaration d’un président sur les médias sociaux (notamment Facebook) constitue-t-elle une entorse à la saine gestion d’une entreprise ? Comment un président peut-il faire connaître son point de vue sur une politique gouvernementale sans affecter la réputation de l’entreprise ?

Qui est responsable de proposer une stratégie pour réparer les pots cassés. Dans ce cas, à mon avis, le président du conseil est appelé à intervenir pour éviter les débordements sur la place publique et résorber une crise potentielle de réputation, le président sortant Finneas a également un rôle important à jouer.

Le cas est bref, mais présente la situation de manière assez explicite ; puis, trois experts se prononcent sur le dilemme que vit le président du conseil.

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont toujours les bienvenus.

 

Risques associés aux communications publiques des CEO sur les réseaux sociaux | un cas pratique

 

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « communications publique »

 

Finneas chairs a medium-sized listed company board. He has been with the company through a very successful CEO transition and is enjoying the challenge of helping the new CEO to hone his leadership of the company.

The CEO has proved a good choice and the staff are settled and productive. Recently the government announced a new policy that will most likely increase the cost of doing business and decrease export competitiveness.

The CEO is rightly concerned. He has already made some personal statements opposing the policy – calling it ‘Stupid and short-sighted industrial vandalism’ – on his Facebook page. Fortunately, the CEO keeps his Facebook account mainly for friends and family so Finneas felt the comments hadn’t attracted much attention.

At his most recent meeting with the CEO, Finneas heard that a journalist had seen the comments and called the CEO asking if he would be prepared to participate in an interview. The CEO is excited at the opportunity to stimulate public debate about the issue. Finneas is more concerned that the CEO will cause people to think poorly of himself, as a harsh critic, and of the company. There are a couple of days before the scheduled interview.

How should Finneas proceed?

Voir les réponses de trois experts de la gouvernance | http://www.mclellan.com.au/archive/dilemma_201811.html

Le courage, une qualité du cœur | Une réflexion de René Villemure


Cette semaine, nous renouons avec notre habitude de collaboration avec des experts avisés en matière de gouvernance et d’éthique. Ainsi, à l’occasion du colloque du réseau d’éthique organisationnel du Québec (RÉOQ) intitulé « Vivre l’éthique au quotidien dans son organisation : entre le rêve et la réalité », j’ai demandé à René Villemure*, conférencier d’honneur du colloque, d’agir à titre d’auteur invité sur mon blogue, et de jeter un regard philosophique sur une réalité avec laquelle tout administrateur et tout gestionnaire est confronté : le courage.

En tant qu’administrateur de société, faire preuve de courage, c’est de poser les bonnes questions, en temps opportun, et en lien avec nos valeurs profondes.

Voici donc la réflexion que nous livre René Villemure à ce sujet. Vous pouvez visiter son site à www.ethique.net pour mieux connaître ses champs d’intérêt et consulter ses nombreux bulletins réflexifs.

Vos commentaires sont appréciés. Bonne lecture !

 

Le courage, une qualité du cœur

par René Villemure*

 

Le courage c’est l’exception, c’est automatiquement la solitude ; quel vide autour du courage ! — Jean Giono

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « courage »

 

Tant dans la direction des entreprises que lors de conseils d’administration, on parle peu de courage, sinon que pour citer ce vague courage managérial qui, au fond, ne signifie, au mieux, que l’on fera les choix qui doivent être faits afin de faire son boulot comme attendu.

Si un mot est la construction d’un son et d’un sens, il semblerait que le courage ne soit devenu qu’un son sans le sens, c’est-à-dire que l’on reconnaît le mot lorsqu’on l’entend, lorsque certains l’évoquent, mais que, au fond, personne ne sait réellement ce en quoi il consiste.

On aura beau créer des formations universitaires en gouvernance, en administration des affaires ou en management, le courage n’est pas une valeur qui se codifie ou qui s’enseigne.

Le courage ne consiste pas à faire son travail tel qu’on l’attend de vous, ce qui n’est que compétence. Non, le courage est une qualité du cœur qui porte à réfléchir et à agir contre la facilité, avec sagesse, dans des circonstances difficiles. Le courage n’existe pas en théorie, il ne peut se démontrer que dans l’action.

Tout comme l’éthique, le courage exige un peu moins de soi et un peu plus des autres. La personne courageuse mettra de côté son intérêt personnel à court terme en vue de réaliser la raison d’être de l’entreprise.

Dans la conduite des affaires, combien de personnes, devant l’adversité, préféreront détourner le regard, se voiler les yeux, ou dire que cela ne me regarde pas ? Combien préféreront la facilité ? Combien diront que c’est imposé et que je n’ai pas le choix ?

Il importe de savoir que le courage ne signifie pas l’absence de peur ; la personne courageuse peut avoir peur dans des circonstances difficiles. Toutefois, la personne courageuse mesurera le danger, évaluera les actions qui peuvent être entreprises, surmontera sa peur et fera ce qui peut être fait dans les circonstances. Le courage se distingue de la témérité, qui n’est après tout que de foncer sans réfléchir. La témérité n’est qu’un excès de courage — sans-réflexion.

Comme dirigeants, comme administrateurs, vous avez toujours le choix. Vous avez d’ailleurs été nommés afin d’exercer ce choix. La question n’est donc pas de savoir si vous avez ou non le choix, mais, plutôt, si vous aurez le courage d’exercer ce choix. Pour le dire autrement : aurez-vous assez de cœur afin de faire ce qui doit être fait ?

Malheureusement, l’observation de la vie des organisations nous offre de [trop] nombreux exemples où plusieurs ont préféré le confort au courage. Confort, c’est un joli mot, mais en réalité, ce confort n’est que lâcheté qui n’ose dire son nom. Certes, lâcheté, c’est moins joli, mais c’est plus exact.

Lorsque l’on y pense un instant, sans courage, on devient sans-cœur.

Dans une société qui change rapidement, on a plus besoin de modèles et de héros que de mercenaires à la fidélité douteuse. C’est pourquoi, dans la conduite des affaires, il convient de réhabiliter le courage, de comprendre sa distinction d’avec la témérité et d’agir de manière juste.

Avec courage.

Avec cœur.

Si le courage mène à l’héroïsme, le manque de courage mène au cynisme.

*René Villemure est Éthicien et Chasseur de tendances. Il a fondé l’Institut québécois d’éthique appliquée en 1998 et Éthikos en 2003. Il a été le premier éthicien au Canada à s’intéresser à la gestion éthique des organisations à l’époque où personne ne connaissait les termes « gouvernance », « responsabilité sociétale des entreprises », « développement durable » et « gestion éthique ». Il croyait que ces sujets étaient cruciaux, fondamentaux, incontournables, et ne devaient pas demeurer dans l’ombre ou le privilège de quelques experts et éthiciens d’occasion.

Éthicien depuis 1998, son point de vue est recherché par les gouvernements et les dirigeants de grandes sociétés publiques et privées tant en Amérique qu’en Europe et en Afrique. Il a, à ce jour, prononcé plus de 675 conférences et formé plus de 65 000 personnes, autour du monde, dans plus de 700 organisations puis a participé à plus de 375 entrevues dans les médias francophones et anglophones. Ses interventions sur l’éthique touchent des domaines aussi variés que le monde de l’entreprise, la santé, l’éducation, l’industrie du luxe, l’agroalimentaire, les relations internationales que la culture ou encore l’intelligence artificielle.

Visionnaire, il invente dès 1998 les concepts de Diagnostic éthique ©, de Modèle de gestion éthique © et signe la conception de la méthode Éthique et valeurs © puis, en 2014, il crée BoardEthics qui mesure la compréhension et la sensibilité éthique de membres de conseils d’administration et de la haute direction. Depuis 2009, il enseigne la Gouvernance éthique au Collège des administrateurs de sociétés de l’Université Laval. Il offre également des séminaires éthiques à l’Institut Français des Administrateurs (IFA) à Paris.

Tout ce que vous devez savoir sur le processus d’évaluation du conseil d’administration


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un excellent article publié par Steve W. Klemash, Rani Doyle et Jamie C. Smith du EY Center for Board Matters, paru sur le forum du HLS on Corporate Governance, qui passent en revue les principaux sujets à considérer dans la démarche d’évaluation de la dynamique du conseil, et dans l’efficacité des membres du conseil.

Tous les conseils d’administration doivent procéder à l’évaluation continue et annuelle des administrateurs. Quelles sont les meilleures façons d’agir ?

Si le sujet vous préoccupe, je vous invite à consulter les thèmes abordés par les auteurs eu égard à l’évaluation des administrateurs :

  1. Comment planifier et concevoir un solide processus d’évaluation ?
  2. Comment conduire le processus d’évaluation ?
  3. Qui doit-on évaluer ?
  4. Comment déterminer et prioriser les thèmes d’évaluation
  5. Comment poser les bonnes questions pour susciter une rétroaction valide ?
  6. Faire des entrevues individuelles afin d’obtenir un meilleur portrait de la situation
  7. Conduire des auto-évaluations et des évaluations par les pairs
  8. Confier le mandat d’évaluation à une expertise externe
  9. Concevoir un processus d’évaluation continue et des moyens de rétroaction efficaces
  10. Procéder à la divulgation du processus d’évaluation et des résultats

 

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « évaluation des administrateurs »

 

Investors, regulators and other stakeholders are seeking greater board effectiveness and accountability and are increasingly interested in board evaluation processes and results. Boards are also seeking to enhance their own effectiveness and to more clearly address stakeholder interest by enhancing their board evaluation processes and disclosures.

The focus on board effectiveness and evaluation reflects factors that have shaped public company governance in recent years, including:

Recent high-profile examples of board oversight failures

Increased complexity, uncertainty, opportunity and risk in business environments globally

Pressure from stakeholders for companies to better explain and achieve current and long-term corporate performance

Board evaluation requirements outside the US, in particular the UK

Increased focus on board composition by institutional investors

Activist investors

In view of these developments, we reviewed the most recent proxy statements filed by companies in the 2018 Fortune 100 to identify notable board evaluation practices, trends and disclosures. Our first observation is that 93% of proxy filers in the Fortune 100 provided at least some disclosures about their board evaluation process. This publication outlines elements that can be considered in designing an effective evaluation process and notes related observations from our proxy statement review.

 

Planning and designing an effective evaluation process

 

Prior to designing and implementing an evaluation process, boards should determine the substantive and specific goals and objectives they want to achieve through evaluation.

The evaluation process should not be used simply as a way to assess whether the board, its committees and its members have satisfactorily performed their required duties and responsibilities. Instead, the evaluation process should be designed to rigorously test whether the board’s composition, dynamics, operations and structure are effective for the company and its business environment, both in the short- and long-term, by:

Focusing director introspection on actual board, committee and director performance compared to agreed-upon board, committee and director performance goals, objectives and requirements

Eliciting valuable and candid feedback from each board member, without attribution if appropriate, about board dynamics, operations, structure, performance and composition

Reaching board agreement on action items and corresponding timelines to address issues observed in the evaluation process

Holding the board accountable for regularly reviewing the implementation of evaluation-related action items, measuring results against agreed-upon goals and expectations, and adjusting actions in real-time to meet evaluation goals and objectives

In determining the most effective approach to evaluation, boards should determine who should lead the evaluation process, who and what should be evaluated, and how and when the evaluation process should be conducted and communicated.

 

Leading the evaluation process

 

Leadership is key in designing and implementing an effective evaluation process that will objectively elicit valuable and candid director feedback about board dynamics, operations, structure, performance and composition.

A majority (69%) of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed that their corporate governance and nominating committee performed the evaluation process either alone or together with the lead independent director or chair. These companies also disclosed that evaluation leaders did or could involve others in the evaluation process, including third parties, internal advisors and external legal counsel. Twenty-two percent of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed using or considering the use of an independent third party to facilitate the evaluation at least periodically.

 

Determining who to evaluate

 

Board and committee evaluations have long been required of all public companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Today, board and committee evaluations are best practice for all public companies.

Approximately one-quarter (24%) of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed that they included individual director self-evaluation along with board and committee evaluation. Ten percent of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed that they conducted peer evaluations. Individual director self and peer evaluations are discussed below.

 

Prioritizing evaluation topics

 

Board, committee and individual director evaluation topics should be customized and prioritized to elicit valuable, candid and useful feedback on board dynamics, operations, structure, performance and composition. Relevant evaluation topics and areas of focus should be drawn from:

Analysis of board and committee minutes and meeting materials

Board governance documents, such as corporate governance guidelines, committee charters, director qualification standards, as well as company codes of conduct and ethics

Observations relevant to board dynamics, operations, structure, performance and composition

Company culture, performance, business environment conditions and strategy

Investor and stakeholder engagement on board composition, performance and oversight

Forty percent of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed the general topics covered by the evaluation. These disclosures typically focus on core board duties and responsibilities and oversight functions, such as:

Strategy, risk and financial performance

Board composition and structure

Company integrity, reputation and culture

Management performance and succession planning

 

Asking focused evaluation questions to elicit valuable feedback

 

About 40% of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed use of questionnaires in their evaluation process, with 15% disclosing use of only questionnaires and 25% disclosing use of both questionnaires and interviews. Questionnaires are a key tool in the evaluation process, but must be thoughtfully and carefully drafted to be effective. Questionnaire responses can be provided without attribution, which can promote candid and more detailed feedback.

Questionnaires are helpful because each director receives the same question set—even if there are separate questionnaires for the board, its committees and individual directors. This approach facilitates comparison of director responses and can help indicate the magnitude of any actual or potential issues as well as variances in director perspective and perception.

Evaluation questionnaires often put questions in the form of a statement, such as “The board is the right size,” which calls for a response along a numerical scale. The larger the numerical scale, the more variance, which allows for a relatively more nuanced response. More specific and candid feedback can be obtained by prompting directors to provide detailed freestyle commentary to explain a response on a numerical scale or to a “yes” or “no” question.

Well-drafted, targeted questions—or questions in the form of a statement—should be written specifically for the board, its committees and individual directors, as applicable, with the goal of eliciting valuable and practical feedback about board dynamics, operations, structure, performance and composition. High-quality feedback is what enables boards and directors to see how they can better perform and communicate, with the result that the company itself better performs and communicates.

Template evaluation questionnaires often do not demonstrate the strong potential of a well-drafted questionnaire. Many template questionnaires seem overlong and include unnecessarily hard- to-answer or unclear questions, such as “Does the board ensure superb operational execution by management?” These types of questions don’t seem to lend themselves to eliciting practical feedback. Complicated or unclear questions should be revised to be more practical or omitted from the questionnaire. Overlong questionnaires should be streamlined to be more relevant and effective in eliciting valuable and useful information.

Template evaluation questionnaires also often include numerous questions about clearly observable or known board and director attributes, practices and requirements. A short set of common examples includes:

I attend board meetings regularly

Advance meeting materials provide sufficient information to prepare for meetings, are clear and well-organized, and highlight the most critical issues for consideration

I come to board meetings well-prepared, having thoroughly studied all pre-meeting materials

The board can clearly articulate and communicate the company’s strategic plan

The board discusses director succession and has implemented a plan based upon individual skill sets and overall board composition

When evaluation questionnaires include numerous questions on observable practices or required duties and responsibilities, the evaluation becomes more of a checklist exercise than a serious effort to elicit valuable and useful information about how to improve board dynamics, operations, performance and composition. Overlong, vaguely worded, generic, checklist-type questionnaires can lead to director inattention and inferior feedback results, further impairing the evaluation process.

More effective questionnaires are purposefully and carefully drafted to focus director attention on matters that cut to the core of board and director performance. This may be facilitated when the questions focus succinctly on agreed-upon board goals and objectives or requirements and director qualifications considered together with the company’s performance and short- and long- term strategy.

For example, a written evaluation questionnaire need not ask whether the board and its directors have discussed and made a plan for director succession because the directors already know the answer. A better approach might be to recognize that such action did not take place and to ask each director, during a confidential interview process, “What factors or events distracted or prevented the board from discussing and implementing a plan for director succession?” Candid responses to that interview question should provide feedback that can uncover practices or leadership that should change in order to improve board performance.

 

Conducting confidential one‑on‑one interviews to elicit more candid feedback

 

Conducting well-planned, skillful interviews as part of the evaluation process can elicit more valuable, detailed, sensitive and candid director feedback as compared to questionnaires. The combined use of questionnaires and interviews may be most effective and, as noted above, was the approach disclosed by about one-quarter of Fortune 100 proxy filers. Fifteen percent of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed use of interviews only.

Interviews are particularly effective when there is an actual or potential issue of some sensitivity to address, as directors may prefer to discuss rather than write about sensitive topics. If boards believe interviews will be helpful, they should carefully consider who should conduct them—with the key criteria being that the interviewer is:

Well-informed about the company and its business environment as well as board practices

Highly trusted—even if not well-known—by the interviewees

Skilled at managing probing and candid conversations

Special considerations may arise when the interviewer is also part of the evaluation process. Where sensitivities like this are perceived, using an experienced and independent third-party interviewer can be effective.

While interviews do not enable anonymity, a trusted and skilled interviewer may still confidentially elicit valuable and sensitive feedback. Interviewer observations and interviewee feedback can be presented to the board without attribution.

 

Individual director self and peer evaluations

 

Individual self and peer evaluations—whether through questionnaires or interviews—can improve an evaluation process, especially one that is already generally successful as applied to the board as a whole and its committees. When directors understand and see value in evaluations at a collective level, they often perceive enhanced value in individual evaluations—both of themselves and of their peers.

Self-evaluations call for directors to be introspective about themselves and their performance and qualifications. Interestingly, simply being asked relevant questions about performance can lead directors to strive harder. The goal of self-evaluation is to enable directors to consider and determine for themselves during the evaluation process—and every other day—what they can proactively do to improve personal performance and better contribute to optimal board performance. Approximately one-quarter of Fortune 100 proxy filer boards included individual director self-evaluation in their evaluation process.

Peer evaluations increasingly are seen as critical tools to develop director skills and performance and promote more authentic board collaboration. A successful peer evaluation can also help improve director perspective. While some suggest that peer evaluations, even if provided anonymously, can be uncomfortable to provide and receive, a key characteristic of an effective board is that the board’s culture inspires and requires active, candid, relevant and useful participation from all members, as well as healthy debate and rigorous and independent yet collaborative decision-making. Where the board culture and dynamic are healthy, directors should see peer evaluation as important and beneficial guidance and coaching from esteemed colleagues. Ten percent of Fortune 100 proxy filer boards included peer evaluations in their evaluation process.

 

Using a third party

 

Use of third-party experts, such as governance advisory firms or external counsel, to facilitate the evaluation process is increasing. Twenty-two percent of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed having a third party facilitate their evaluation at least periodically, typically stated as every two or three years.

A third party can perform a range of evaluation services, from leading the evaluation process to conducting interviews to providing evaluation questions and reviewing questionnaire responses. Third parties can also help oversee implementation of evaluation action items.

Where the third party is independent of the company and the board, its participation in the evaluation process can meaningfully enhance the objectivity and rigor of the process and results. Third-party experts can provide new and different perspectives, both gained from work with other companies as well as simply being from outside the company, which can lead to improved action-item development and evaluation results.

The use of a third party may be especially helpful when:

The board wants to test or improve its existing evaluation process

Directors may not be forthcoming and candid with an internal evaluator

The board believes an independent third party can objectively bring new perspectives and issues to the board’s attention

The board is new or has undergone a significant change in composition and its directors are not yet poised to conduct an effective evaluation

The board has not seen significant change in composition over a period of time and new perspective is desired on board composition and performance

The company and its board are facing and addressing a crisis

 

Intra‑year evaluations and feedback

 

Board evaluations generally are performed annually. Common evaluation topics, however, relate to board practices and director attributes that are observable either in real-time, over a three- or six-month period, or with reference to board agendas and minutes. In such cases, boards should formally encourage real-time or prompt feedback to constructively address actual or potential issues. Indeed, doing so allows directors themselves to embody the “see something, say something” culture needed to promote long-term corporate value.

The concept of real-time or intra-year evaluation of board and director composition and performance is not new, even if not now widely practiced. A few (just under 10%) of proxy filers in the Fortune 100 disclosed that they carry out phases of the evaluation process on an ongoing basis, at every in-person meeting, quarterly, biannually or otherwise during the year.

 

Disclosing the evaluation process and evaluation results

 

A vast majority, 93%, of Fortune 100 proxy filers provide at least some disclosure about their evaluation process, but we observed wide variances in the scope and details of the disclosures.

Given the attention to board effectiveness, we expect companies will expand their disclosures relating to board evaluation and effectiveness.

About 20% of Fortune 100 proxy filers disclosed, at a high level, actions taken as a result of their board evaluation. Some examples include:

Enhanced director orientation programs

Changes to board structure and composition

Changes to director tenure or retirement age limits

Expanded director search and recruitment practices

Improvements to the format and timing of board materials

More time to review key issues like strategy and cybersecurity

Changes to company and board governance documents

Improved evaluation process

Conclusion

 

Investors, regulators, other company stakeholders and governance experts are challenging boards to examine and explain board performance and composition. Boards should address this challenge—first and foremost through a tailored and effective evaluation process. In doing this, boards can work to identify areas for growth and change to improve performance and optimize composition in ways that can enhance long-term value. Boards can also describe evaluation processes and high- level results to investors and other stakeholders in ways that can enhance understanding and trust.

 

Questions for the board to consider

 

  1. Has the most recent evaluation process enabled the board and individual directors to identify actions to optimize board and director performance and board composition?
  2. Has the company considered disclosing the evaluation process and summarizing the nature of actions taken to enhance stakeholder understanding of the board’s work and value?
  3. Does the board as a whole and each director have a common and clear understanding of the term “effectiveness” as applied to the board as a whole, its committees and each director individually?
  4. Has the board formulated clear goals, objectives and standards for itself, its committees and each director that can be referenced during and outside of the evaluation process? If the board has director qualification standards, should they be expanded in more specific ways to include standards and requirements that each director must consistently meet to earn renomination?
  5. Does the evaluation process include components that occur on a biannual, quarterly and/or real-time basis? If not, why not?
  6. Is the evaluation process appropriately synergized with the board’s annual governance review, orientation and education programs, director nomination process, succession planning and stakeholder engagement programs?
  7. Does the evaluation process provide validation to each director that he or she is the right director at the right time for the right company?

____________________________________________________________

Voir aussi Comment procéder à l’évaluation du CA, des comités et des … Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé

Quelles tendances en gouvernance, identifiées en 2014, se sont avérées au 20 octobre 2018


Dans un premier temps, j’ai tenté de répondre à cette question en renvoyant le lecteur à deux publications que j’ai faites sur le sujet. C’est du genre check-list !

Puis, dans un deuxième temps, je vous invite à consulter les documents suivants qui me semblent très pertinents pour répondre à la question. Il s’agit en quelque sorte d’une revue de la littérature sur le sujet.

  1. La gouvernance relative aux sociétés en 2017 | Un « Survey » des entreprises du SV 150 et de la S&P 100
  2. Principales tendances en gouvernance à l’échelle internationale en 2017
  3. Séparation des fonctions de PDG et de président du conseil d’administration | Signe de saine gouvernance !
  4. Six mesures pour améliorer la gouvernance des organismes publics au Québec | Yvan Allaire
  5. Cadre de référence pour évaluer la gouvernance des sociétés | Questionnaire de 100 items
  6. La gouvernance française suit-elle la tendance mondiale ?
  7. Enquête mondiale sur les conseils d’administration et la gouvernance

 

J’espère que ces commentaires vous seront utiles, même si mon intervention est colorée par la situation canadienne et américaine !

Bonne lecture !

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « tendances en gouvernance »

 

Gouvernance : 12 tendances à surveiller

 

J’ai réalisé une entrevue avec le Journal des Affaires le 17 mars 2014. Une rédactrice au sein de l’Hebdo des AG, un média numérique qui se consacre au traitement des sujets touchant à la gouvernance des entreprises françaises, m’a contacté afin de connaître mon opinion sur quelles « prédictions » se sont effectivement avérées, et lesquelles restent encore à améliorer.

J’ai préparé quelques réflexions en référence aux douze tendances que j’avais identifiées le 17 mars 2014. J’ai donc revisité les tendances afin de vérifier comment la situation avait évolué en quatre ans. J’ai indiqué en rouge mon point de vue eu égard à ces tendances.

 « Si la gouvernance des entreprises a fait beaucoup de chemin depuis quelques années, son évolution se poursuit. Afin d’imaginer la direction qu’elle prendra au cours des prochaines années, nous avons consulté l’expert en gouvernance Jacques Grisé, ex- directeur des programmes du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés, de l’Université Laval. Toujours affilié au Collège, M. Grisé publie depuis plusieurs années le blogue www.jacquesgrisegouvernance.com, un site incontournable pour rester à l’affût des bonnes pratiques et tendances en gouvernance. Voici les 12 tendances dont il faut suivre l’évolution, selon Jacques Grisé »

 

  1. Les conseils d’administration réaffirmeront leur autorité. « Auparavant, la gouvernance était une affaire qui concernait davantage le management », explique M. Grisé. La professionnalisation de la fonction d’administrateur amène une modification et un élargissement du rôle et des responsabilités des conseils. Les CA sont de plus en plus sollicités et questionnés au sujet de leurs décisions et de l’entreprise. Cette affirmation est de plus en plus vraie. La formation certifiée en gouvernance est de plus en plus prisée. Les CA, et notamment les présidents de CA, sont de plus en plus sollicités pour expliquer leurs décisions, leurs erreurs et les problèmes de gestion de crise.
  2. La formation des administrateurs prendra de l’importance. À l’avenir, on exigera toujours plus des administrateurs. C’est pourquoi la formation est essentielle et devient même une exigence pour certains organismes. De plus, la formation continue se généralise ; elle devient plus formelle. Il va de soi que la formation en gouvernance prendra plus d’importance, mais les compétences et les expériences reliées au secteur d’activité de l’entreprise seront toujours très recherchées.
  3. L’affirmation du droit des actionnaires et celle du rôle du conseil s’imposeront. Le débat autour du droit des actionnaires par rapport à celui des conseils d’administration devra mener à une compréhension de ces droits conflictuels. Aujourd’hui, les conseils doivent tenir compte des parties prenantes en tout temps. Il existe toujours une situation potentiellement conflictuelle entre les intérêts des actionnaires et la responsabilité des administrateurs envers toutes les parties prenantes.
  4. La montée des investisseurs activistes se poursuivra. L’arrivée de l’activisme apporte une nouvelle dimension au travail des administrateurs. Les investisseurs activistes s’adressent directement aux actionnaires, ce qui mine l’autorité des conseils d’administration. Est-ce bon ou mauvais ? La vision à court terme des activistes peut être néfaste, mais toutes leurs actions ne sont pas négatives, notamment parce qu’ils s’intéressent souvent à des entreprises qui ont besoin d’un redressement sous une forme ou une autre. Pour bien des gens, les fonds activistes sont une façon d’améliorer la gouvernance. Le débat demeure ouvert. Le débat est toujours ouvert, mais force est de constater que l’actionnariat activiste est en pleine croissance partout dans le monde. Les effets souvent décriés des activistes sont de plus en plus acceptés comme bénéfiques dans plusieurs situations de gestion déficiente.
  5. La recherche de compétences clés deviendra la norme. De plus en plus, les organisations chercheront à augmenter la qualité de leur conseil en recrutant des administrateurs aux expertises précises, qui sont des atouts dans certains domaines ou secteurs névralgiques. Cette tendance est très nette. Les CA cherchent à recruter des membres aux expertises complémentaires.
  6. Les règles de bonne gouvernance vont s’étendre à plus d’entreprises. Les grands principes de la gouvernance sont les mêmes, peu importe le type d’organisation, de la PME à la société ouverte (ou cotée), en passant par les sociétés d’État, les organismes à but non lucratif et les entreprises familiales. Ici également, l’application des grands principes de gouvernance se généralise et s’applique à tous les types d’organisation, en les adaptant au contexte.
  7. Le rôle du président du conseil sera davantage valorisé. La tendance veut que deux personnes distinctes occupent les postes de président du conseil et de PDG, au lieu qu’une seule personne cumule les deux, comme c’est encore trop souvent le cas. Un bon conseil a besoin d’un solide leader, indépendant du PDG. Le rôle du Chairman est de plus en plus mis en évidence, car c’est lui qui représente le conseil auprès des différents publics. Il est de plus en plus indépendant de la direction. Les É.U. sont plus lents à adopter la séparation des fonctions entre Chairman et CEO.
  8. La diversité deviendra incontournable. Même s’il y a un plus grand nombre de femmes au sein des conseils, le déficit est encore énorme. Pourtant, certaines études montrent que les entreprises qui font une place aux femmes au sein de leur conseil sont plus rentables. Et la diversité doit s’étendre à d’autres origines culturelles, à des gens de tous âges et d’horizons divers. La diversité dans la composition des conseils d’administration est de plus en plus la norme. On a fait des progrès remarquables à ce chapitre, mais la tendance à la diminution de la taille des CA ralentit quelque peu l’accession des femmes aux postes d’administratrices.
  9. Le rôle stratégique du conseil dans l’entreprise s’imposera. Le temps où les CA ne faisaient qu’approuver les orientations stratégiques définies par la direction est révolu. Désormais, l’élaboration du plan stratégique de l’entreprise doit se faire en collaboration avec le conseil, en profitant de son expertise. Certes, l’un des rôles les plus importants des administrateurs est de voir à l’orientation de l’entreprise, en apportant une valeur ajoutée aux stratégies élaborées par la direction. Les CA sont toujours sollicités, sous une forme ou une autre, dans la conception de la stratégie.
  10. La réglementation continuera de se raffermir. Le resserrement des règles qui encadrent la gouvernance ne fait que commencer. Selon Jacques Grisé, il faut s’attendre à ce que les autorités réglementaires exercent une surveillance accrue partout dans le monde, y compris au Québec, avec l’Autorité des marchés financiers. En conséquence, les conseils doivent se plier aux règles, notamment en ce qui concerne la rémunération et la divulgation. Les responsabilités des comités au sein du conseil prendront de l’importance. Les conseils doivent mettre en place des politiques claires en ce qui concerne la gouvernance. Les conseils d’administration accordent une attention accrue à la gouvernance par l’intermédiaire de leur comité de gouvernance, mais aussi par leurs comités de RH et d’Audit. Les autorités réglementaires mondiales sont de plus en plus vigilantes eu égard à l’application des principes de saine gouvernance. La SEC, qui donnait souvent le ton dans ce domaine, est en mode révision de la réglementation parce que le gouvernement de Trump la juge trop contraignante pour les entreprises. À suivre !
  11. La composition des conseils d’administration s’adaptera aux nouvelles exigences et se transformera. Les CA seront plus petits, ce qui réduira le rôle prépondérant du comité exécutif, en donnant plus de pouvoir à tous les administrateurs. Ceux-ci seront mieux choisis et formés, plus indépendants, mieux rémunérés et plus redevables de leur gestion aux diverses parties prenantes. Les administrateurs auront davantage de responsabilités et seront plus engagés dans les comités aux fonctions plus stratégiques. Leur responsabilité légale s’élargira en même temps que leurs tâches gagnent en importance. Il faudra donc des membres plus engagés, un conseil plus diversifié, dirigé par un leader plus fort. C’est la voie que les CA ont empruntée. La taille des CA est de plus en plus réduite ; les conseils exécutifs sont en voie de disparition pour faire plus de place aux trois comités statutaires : Gouvernance, Ressources Humaines et Audit. Les administrateurs sont de plus en plus engagés et ils doivent investir plus de temps dans leurs fonctions.
  12. L’évaluation de la performance des conseils d’administration deviendra la norme. La tendance est déjà bien ancrée aux États-Unis, où les entreprises engagent souvent des firmes externes pour mener cette évaluation. Certaines choisissent l’auto-évaluation. Dans tous les cas, le processus est ouvert et si les résultats restent confidentiels, ils contribuent à l’amélioration de l’efficacité des conseils d’administration. Effectivement, l’évaluation de la performance des conseils d’administration est devenue une pratique quasi universelle dans les entreprises cotées. Celles-ci doivent d’ailleurs divulguer le processus dans le rapport aux actionnaires. On assiste à un énorme changement depuis les dix dernières années.

 

À ces 12 tendances, il faudrait en ajouter deux autres qui se sont révélées cruciales pour les conseils d’administration depuis quelques années :

(1) la mise en œuvre d’une politique de gestion des risques, l’identification des risques, l’évaluation des facteurs de risque eu égard à leur probabilité d’occurrence et d’impact sur l’organisation, le suivi effectué par le comité d’audit et par l’auditeur interne.

(2) le renforcement des ressources du conseil par l’ajout de compétences liées à la cybersécurité. La sécurité des données est l’un des plus grands risques des entreprises.

 

Aspects fondamentaux à considérer par les administrateurs dans la gouvernance des organisations

 

 

Récemment, je suis intervenu auprès du conseil d’administration d’une OBNL et j’ai animé une discussion tournant autour des thèmes suivants en affirmant certains principes de gouvernance que je pense être incontournables.

Vous serez certainement intéressé par les propositions suivantes :

(1) Le conseil d’administration est souverain — il est l’ultime organe décisionnel.

(2) Le rôle des administrateurs est d’assurer la saine gestion de l’organisation en fonction d’objectifs établis. L’administrateur a un rôle de fiduciaire, non seulement envers les membres qui les ont élus, mais aussi envers les parties prenantes de toute l’organisation. Son rôle comporte des devoirs et des responsabilités envers celle-ci.

(3) Les administrateurs ont un devoir de surveillance et de diligence ; ils doivent cependant s’assurer de ne pas s’immiscer dans la gestion de l’organisation (« nose in, fingers out »).

(4) Les administrateurs élus par l’assemblée générale ne sont pas porteurs des intérêts propres à leur groupe ; ce sont les intérêts supérieurs de l’organisation qui priment.

(5) Le président du conseil est le chef d’orchestre du groupe d’administrateurs ; il doit être en étroite relation avec le premier dirigeant et bien comprendre les coulisses du pouvoir.

(6) Les membres du conseil doivent entretenir des relations de collaboration et de respect entre eux ; ils doivent viser les consensus et exprimer leur solidarité, notamment par la confidentialité des échanges.

(7) Les administrateurs doivent être bien préparés pour les réunions du conseil et ils doivent poser les bonnes questions afin de bien comprendre les enjeux et de décider en toute indépendance d’esprit. Pour ce faire, ils peuvent tirer profit de l’avis d’experts indépendants.

(8) La composition du conseil devrait refléter la diversité de l’organisation. On doit privilégier l’expertise, la connaissance de l’industrie et la complémentarité.

(9) Le conseil d’administration doit accorder toute son attention aux orientations stratégiques de l’organisation et passer le plus clair de son temps dans un rôle de conseil stratégique.

(10) Chaque réunion devrait se conclure par un huis clos, systématiquement inscrit à l’ordre du jour de toutes les rencontres.

(11) Le président du CA doit procéder à l’évaluation du fonctionnement et de la dynamique du conseil.

(12) Les administrateurs doivent prévoir des activités de formation en gouvernance et en éthique.

 

Voici enfin une documentation utile pour bien appréhender les grandes tendances qui se dégagent dans le monde de la gouvernance aux É.U., au Canada et en France.

 

  1. La gouvernance relative aux sociétés en 2017 | Un « Survey » des entreprises du SV 150 et de la S&P 100
  2. Principales tendances en gouvernance à l’échelle internationale en 2017
  3. Séparation des fonctions de PDG et de président du conseil d’administration | Signe de saine gouvernance !
  4. Six mesures pour améliorer la gouvernance des organismes publics au Québec | Yvan Allaire
  5. Cadre de référence pour évaluer la gouvernance des sociétés | Questionnaire de 100 items
  6. La gouvernance française suit-elle la tendance mondiale ?
  7. Enquête mondiale sur les conseils d’administration et la gouvernance

 

Le conseil d’administration est garant de la bonne conduite éthique de l’organisation | Rendez-vous à un colloque inspirant !


La considération de l’éthique et des valeurs d’intégrité sont des sujets de grande actualité dans toutes les sphères de la vie organisationnelle*. À ce propos, le Réseau d’éthique organisationnelle du Québec (RÉOQ) tient son colloque annuel les 25 et 26 octobre 2018 à l’hôtel Marriott Courtyard Montréal Centre-Ville et il propose plusieurs conférences qui traitent de l’éthique au quotidien. Je vous invite à consulter le programme du colloque et y participer.

 

 

Ne vous méprenez pas, la saine gouvernance des entreprises repose sur l’attention assidue accordée aux questions éthiques par le président du conseil, par le comité de gouvernance et d’éthique, ainsi que par tous les membres du conseil d’administration. Ceux-ci ont un devoir inéluctable de respect de la charte éthique approuvée par le CA.

Les défaillances en ce qui a trait à l’intégrité des personnes et les manquements de nature éthique sont souvent le résultat d’un conseil d’administration qui n’exerce pas un fort leadership éthique et qui n’affiche pas de valeurs transparentes à ce propos. Ainsi, il faut affirmer haut et fort que les comportements des employés sont largement tributaires de la culture de l’entreprise, des pratiques en cours, des contrôles internes… Et que les administrateurs sont les fiduciaires de ces valeurs qui font la réputation de l’entreprise !

Cette affirmation implique que tous les membres d’un conseil d’administration doivent faire preuve de comportements éthiques exemplaires : « Tone at the Top ». Les administrateurs doivent se donner les moyens d’évaluer cette valeur au sein de leur conseil, et au sein de l’organisation.

C’est la responsabilité du conseil de veiller à ce que de solides valeurs d’intégrité soient transmises à l’échelle de toute l’organisation, que la direction et les employés connaissent bien les codes de conduites et que l’on s’assure d’un suivi adéquat à cet égard.

Mais là où les CA achoppent trop souvent dans l’établissement d’une solide conduite éthique, c’est (1) dans la formulation de politiques probantes (2) dans la mise en place de l’instrumentalisation requise (3) dans le recrutement de personnes qui adhèrent aux objectifs énoncés et (4) dans l’évaluation et le suivi du climat organisationnel.

Les administrateurs doivent poser les bonnes questions sur la situation existante et prendre le recul nécessaire pour envisager les divers points de vue des parties prenantes dans le but d’assurer la transmission efficace du code de conduite de l’entreprise.

Les préconceptions et les préjugés sont coriaces, mais ils doivent être confrontés lors des échanges de vues au CA ou lors des huis clos. Les administrateurs doivent aborder les situations avec un esprit ouvert et indépendant.

Vous aurez compris que le président du conseil a un rôle clé à cet égard. C’est lui qui doit incarner le leadership en matière d’éthique et de culture organisationnelle. L’une de ses tâches est de s’assurer qu’il consacre le temps approprié aux questionnements éthiques. Pour ce faire, le président du CA doit poser des gestes concrets (1) en plaçant les considérations éthiques à l’ordre du jour (2) en s’assurant de la formation des administrateurs (3) en renforçant le rôle du comité de gouvernance et (4) en mettant le comportement éthique au cœur de ses préoccupations.

Le choix du premier dirigeant (PDG) est l’une des plus grandes responsabilités des conseils d’administration. Lors du processus de sélection, on doit s’assurer que le PDG incarne les valeurs éthiques qui correspondent aux attentes élevées des administrateurs ainsi qu’aux pratiques en vigueur. L’évaluation annuelle des dirigeants doit tenir compte de leur engagement éthique, et le résultat doit se refléter dans la rémunération variable des dirigeants.

Quels items peut-on utiliser pour évaluer la composante éthique de la gouvernance du conseil d’administration ? Voici un instrument qui peut aider à y voir plus clair. Ce cadre de référence novateur a été conçu par le Bureau de vérification interne de l’Université de Montréal.

 

1.       Les politiques de votre organisation visant à favoriser l’éthique sont-elles bien connues et appliquées par ses employés, partenaires et bénévoles ?
2.       Le Conseil de votre organisation aborde-t-il régulièrement la question de l’éthique, notamment en recevant des rapports sur les plaintes, les dénonciations ?
3.       Le Conseil et l’équipe de direction de votre organisation participent-ils régulièrement à des activités de formation visant à parfaire leurs connaissances et leurs compétences en matière d’éthique ?
4.       S’assure-t-on que la direction générale est exemplaire et a développé une culture fondée sur des valeurs qui se déclinent dans l’ensemble de l’organisation ?
5.       S’assure-t-on que la direction prend au sérieux les manquements à l’éthique et les gère promptement et de façon cohérente ?
6.       S’assure-t-on que la direction a élaboré un code de conduite efficace auquel elle adhère, et veille à ce que tous les membres du personnel en comprennent la teneur, la pertinence et l’importance ?
7.       S’assure-t-on de l’existence de canaux de communication efficaces (ligne d’alerte téléphonique dédiée, assistance téléphonique, etc.) pour permettre aux membres du personnel et partenaires de signaler les problèmes ?
8.       Le Conseil reconnaît-il l’impact sur la réputation de l’organisation du comportement de ses principaux fournisseurs et autres partenaires ?
9.       Est-ce que le président du Conseil donne le ton au même titre que le DG au niveau des opérations sur la culture organisationnelle au nom de ses croyances, son attitude et ses valeurs ?

10.    Est-ce que l’organisation a la capacité d’intégrer des changements à même ses processus, outils ou comportements dans un délai raisonnable ?

*Autres lectures pertinentes :

  1. Formation en éthique 2.0 pour les conseils d’administration
  2. Rapport spécial sur l’importance de l’éthique dans l’amélioration de la gouvernance | Knowledge@Wharton
  3. Rôle du conseil d’administration en matière d’éthique*
  4. Comment le CA peut-il exercer une veille de l’éthique ?
  5. Le CA est garant de l’intégrité de l’entreprise
  6. Cadre de référence pour évaluer la gouvernance des sociétés | Questionnaire de 100 items

Quels sont les efforts à faire pour obtenir un poste d’administrateur de société de nos jours ? | Un rappel utile


Plusieurs personnes très qualifiées me demandent comment procéder pour décrocher un poste d’administrateur de sociétés… rapidement.

Dans une période où les conseils d’administration ont des tailles de plus en plus restreintes ainsi que des exigences de plus en plus élevées, comment faire pour obtenir un poste, surtout si l’on a peu ou pas d’expérience comme CEO d’une entreprise ?

Je leur réponds qu’ils doivent :

(1) viser un secteur d’activité dans lequel ils ont une solide expertise

(2) bien comprendre ce qui les démarque (en revisitant leur CV)

(3) se demander comment leurs avantages comparatifs peuvent ajouter de la valeur à l’organisation

(4) explorer comment ils peuvent faire appel à leurs réseaux de contacts

(5) s’assurer de bien comprendre l’industrie et le modèle d’affaires de l’entreprise

(6) bien faire connaître leurs champs d’intérêt et leurs compétences en gouvernance, notamment en communiquant avec le président du comité de gouvernance de l’entreprise convoitée, et

(7) surtout… d’être patients !

Si vous n’avez pas suivi une formation en gouvernance, je vous encourage fortement à consulter les programmes du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS).

L’article qui suit présente une démarche de recherche d’un mandat d’administrateur en six étapes. L’article a été rédigé par Alexandra Reed Lajoux, directrice de la veille en gouvernance à la National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD).

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, une brève introduction de l’article paru sur le blogue de Executive Career Insider, ainsi qu’une énumération des 6 éléments à considérer.

Je vous conseille de lire ce court article en vous rappelant qu’il est surtout destiné à un auditoire américain. Vous serez étonné de constater les similitudes avec la situation canadienne.

 

6 Steps to Becoming a Corporate Director This Year

 

Of all the career paths winding through the business world, few can match the prestige and fascination of corporate board service. The honor of being selected to guide the future of an enterprise, combined with the intellectual challenge of helping that enterprise succeed despite the odds, make directorship a strong magnet for ambition and a worthy goal for accomplishment.

Furthermore, the pay can be decent, judging from the NACD and Pearl Meyer & Partners director compensation studies. While directors do risk getting underpaid for the accordion-like hours they can be called upon to devote (typical pay is a flat retainer plus stock, but hours are as needed with no upper limit), it’s typically equivalent to CEO pay, if considered hour for hour. For example, a director can expect to work a good 250 hours for the CEO’s 2,500 and to receive nearly 10 percent of the CEO’s pay. In a public company that can provide marketable equity (typically half of pay), the sums can be significant—low six figures for the largest global companies.

Granted, directorship cannot be a first career. As explained in my previous post, boards offer only part time engagements and they typically seek candidates with track records. Yet directorship can be a fulfilling mid-career sideline, and a culminating vocation later in life—for those who retire from day to day work, but still have much to offer.

So, at any age or stage, how can you get on a board? Here are 6 steps, representing common wisdom and some of my own insights based on what I have heard from directors who have searched for – or who are seeking – that first board seat.

 

1. Recast your resume – and retune your mindset – for board service. Before you begin your journey, remember that the most important readers of your resume will be board members in search of a colleague. As such, although they will be duly impressed by your skills and accomplishments as an executive, as they read your resume or talk to you in an interview they will be looking and listening for clues that you will be an effective director. Clearly, any board positions you have had – including nonprofit board service, work on special committees or task forces and the like should be prominent on your resume and in your mind.

2. Integrate the right keywords. Language can be tuned accordingly to “directorspeak.” Any language that suggests you singlehandedly brought about results should be avoided. Instead, use language about “working with peers,” “dialogue,” and “stewardship” or “fiduciary group decisions, » « building consensus, » and so forth. While terms such as “risk oversight,” “assurance,” “systems of reporting and compliance,” and the like should not be overdone (boards are not politbureaus) they can add an aura of governance to an otherwise ordinary resume. This is not to suggest that you have two resumes – one for executive work and one for boards. Your use of boardspeak can enhance an existing executive resume. So consider updating the resume you have on Bluesteps and uploading that same resume to NACD’s Directors Registry.

3. Suit up and show up—or as my colleague Rochelle Campbell, NACD senior member engagement manager, often says, “network, network, network.” In a letter to military leaders seeking to make a transition From Battlefield to Boardroom (BtoB)through a training program NACD offers for military flag officers, Rochelle elaborates: “Make sure you attend your local chapter events—and while you are there don’t just shake hands, get to know people, talk to the speakers, and create opportunities for people to learn about you and your capabilities, not just your biography.” Rochelle, who has helped military leaders convey the value of their military leadership experience to boards, adds: “Ensure when you are networking, that you are doing so with a purpose. Include in your conversations that you are ready, qualified, and looking for a board seat.” Rochelle also points out the value of joining one’s local Chamber of Commerce and other business groups in relevant industries.

4. Cast a wide net. It is unrealistic for most candidates to aim for their first service to be on a major public company board. Your first board seat will likely be an unpaid position on a nonprofit board, or an equity-only spot on a start-up private board, or a small-cap company in the U.S. or perhaps oversees. Consider joining a director association outside the U.S. Through the Global Network of Director Institutes‘ website you can familiarize yourself with the world’s leading director associations. Some of them (for example, the Institute of Directors in New Zealand) send out regular announcements of open board seats, soliciting applications. BlueSteps members also have access to board opportunities, including one currently listed for in England seeking a non-executive director.

5. Join NACD. As long as you serve as a director on a board (including even a local nonprofit) you can join NACD as an individual where you will be assigned your own personal concierge and receive an arrange of benefits far too numerous to list here. (Please visit NACDonline.org to see them.)  If you seek additional board seats beyond the one you have, you will be particularly interested in our Directors Registry, where NACD members can upload their resumes and fill out a profile so seeking boards can find them. Another aspect will be your ability to attend local NACD chapter events, many of which are closed to nonmembers. You can also join NACD as a Boardroom Executive Affiliate no matter what your current professional status.

6. Pace yourself. If you are seeking a public company board seat, bear in mind that a typical search time will be more than two years, according to a relevant survey from executive search firm Heidrick & Struggles and the affinity group WomenCorporateDirectors. That’s how long on average that both female and male directors responding to the survey said it took for them to get on a board once they started an active campaign. (An earlier H&S/WCD survey had indicated that it took more time for women than for men, but that discrepancy seems to have evened out now – good news considering studies by Credit Suisse and others showing a connection between gender diversity and corporate performance.)  Remember that the two years is how long it took successful candidates to land a seat (people looking back from a boardroom seat on how long it took to get them there). If you average in the years spent by those who never get a board seat and gave up, the time would be longer. This can happen.

An Uphill Battle

Jim Kristie, longtime editor of Directors & Boards, once shared a poignant letter from one of his readers, whose all too valid complaint he called “protypical”:
When I turned 50, I felt like I had enough experience to add value to a public board of directors. I had served on private boards. I joined the National Association of Corporate Directors, and began soliciting smaller public companies to serve on their boards. I even solicited pink sheet companies. I solicited private equity firms to serve on the boards of portfolio companies. I signed up with headhunters, and Nasdaq Board Recruiting. In the last several years, I have sent my CV to hundreds of people, and made hundreds of telephone calls. I have been in the running, but so far no board positions.

Jim responded that the individual had done “all the right things” (thanks for the endorsement!) and steered him to additional relevant resources.

Similarly, a highly respected military flag officer, an Army general who spent two solid years looking for a board seat with help from NACD, called his search an “uphill battle.”  While four-star generals tend to attract invitations for board service, flag officers and others do not always get the attention they merit from recruiters and nominating committees. In correspondence to our CEO, he praised the BtoB program, but had some words of realism:
My experience over the past two years has convinced me that until sitting board room members see the value and diversity of thought that a B2B member brings, we will never see an appreciable rise in board room membership beyond the defense industry and even then, they only really value flag membership for the access they bring. The ‘requirements’  listed for new board members coming from industry will rarely match with a B2B resume and until such time that boards understand the value that comes with having a B2B member as part of their leadership team, they probably never will.

We’ve heard similar words from other kinds of leaders—from human resources directors to chief internal auditors, to university presidents. With so few board seats opening up every year, and with a strong leaning toward for-profit CEOs, it’s a real challenge to get through the boardroom door.

One of NACD’s long-term goals is to educate existing boards on the importance of welcoming these important forms of leadership, dispelling the notion that only a for-profit CEO can serve. For example, I happen to believe that a tested military leader can offer boards as much as or more than a civilian leader in the current high-risk environment. But no matter what your theatre of action, you must prepare for a long campaign. It’s worth the battle!

Manuel de saine gouvernance au Canada


Voici un excellent rapport produit par L’Alliance canadienne pour la mixité et la bonne gouvernance que je vous invite vivement à consulter.

L’Alliance « est un regroupement inédit d’organisations sans but lucratif de premier plan, axé sur la recherche, la promotion et l’information dans les domaines de la gouvernance et de la mixité ».

Les membres de l’Alliance sont les suivants :

Les initiatives de l’Alliance consistent en la publication de deux documents qui constituent en quelque sorte des jalons et des consensus sur les principes de saine gouvernance au Canada.
La première partie du rapport porte sur la mixité dans les conseils d’administration.
Tout porte à croire que les organisations dotées de conseils d’administration et d’équipe de haute direction où les deux sexes sont représentés de façon équilibrée sont plus susceptibles que les autres d’obtenir de solides résultats financiers à long terme et de bénéficier d’une culture organisationnelle plus positive et inspirante. Elles donnent l’exemple et signalent clairement que la diversité de pensée et d’expérience leur tient à cœur.
Cette première partie brosse un portrait de la situation de la mixité au Canada. On y traite des points suivants :
– Le contexte et les obstacles courants
– L’analyse de rentabilité
– Les conditions essentielles de la mixité dans les conseils d’administration
Dans la deuxième partie, les auteurs ont constitué une trousse pour les conseils d’administration.
On y aborde les sujets suivants, en présentant de nombreux outils pratiques utiles à tous les CA :
1. Processus d’évaluation officiel des conseils d’administration
2. Limites liées aux mandats et à l’âge
3. Matrice de compétences des conseils d’administration
4. Politique sur la diversité des genres
5. Recrutement des membres du conseil
Résultats de recherche d'images pour « Alliance canadienne pour la mixité et la bonne gouvernance »
L’Alliance canadienne pour la mixité et la bonne gouvernance

 

Les auteurs espèrent que ce « manuel stimulera la réflexion et apportera des outils pratiques pour la prise de mesures qui se traduiront par un meilleur équilibre hommes-femmes dans les conseils d’administration ».

Bonne lecture !

L’état de la situation en matière d’activisme des actionnaires


Il est important pour les administrateurs de sociétés d’être bien informés de l’état de la situation eu égard au phénomène de l’activisme.

Qu’y a-t-il de nouveau à l’aube de 2019 ?

Martin Lipton* associé fondateur de la firme Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, spécialisée dans les questions de fusions et acquisitions ainsi que dans les activités relatives à la gouvernance des entreprises cotées, nous offre une mise à jour des principales tendances dans le monde de l’activisme et des investissements à long terme.

L’article, publié par HLS Forum on Corporate Governance, peut être traduit en français instantanément en utilisant l’outil de traduction du navigateur Chrome. Même si le résultat est imparfait, cela permet de mieux comprendre certaines parties de l’article.

Voici donc les principaux facteurs à prendre en compte en 2019.

Bonne lecture !

 

Activism: The State of Play

 

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « activist martin lipton »
Conférencier d’honneur lors de la célébration du 10e anniversaire de l’IGOPP

 

  1. The threat of activism remains high, and has become increasingly global.
  2. Activist assets under management remain at elevated levels, encouraging continued attacks on many large successful companies in the U.S. and abroad.
  3. In the current robust M&A environment, deal-related activism is prevalent, with activists instigating deal activity, challenging announced transactions (e.g., the “bumpitrage” strategy of pressing for a price increase) and/or pressuring the target into a merger or a private equity deal with the activist itself.
  4. “Short” activists, who seek to profit from a decline in the target’s market value, are increasingly aggressive in both the equity and corporate debt markets.
  5. Activists continue to garner extensive coverage in both the business and broader press, including a lengthy profile of Paul Singer and Elliott Management in an August New Yorker article, “Paul Singer, Doomsday Investor”. “Singer has excelled in this field in part because of a canny ability to discern his opponents’ weaknesses and a seeming imperviousness to public disapproval.”
  6. Momentum for enhanced ESG disclosures is growing. The Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism continues to study ways to measure long-term sustainable value creation that will demonstrate the value companies create beyond financial results. Embankment Project for Inclusive Capitalism. And earlier this month, two prominent business law professors, supported by investors and other entities with over $5 trillion in assets under management, filed a petition for rulemaking calling for the SEC to “develop a comprehensive framework requiring issuers to disclose identified environmental, social, and governance (ESG) aspects of each public-reporting company’s operations.”
  7. In turn, activists have sought to enhance their profile among governance professionals, passive institutional investors and ESG-oriented investors, e.g., JANA Partners’ “impact investing” fund which has partnered with CalSTRS to request that Apple address overuse of its devices among youth, and Elliott Management’s “Head of Investment Stewardship” position, highlighted in an October 8, 2018 Wall Street Journal article.
  8. An important new study by Ed deHaan, David Larcker and Charles McClure, Long-Term Economic Consequences of Hedge Fund Activist Interventions, has found that on a value weighted basis, long-term returns are “insignificantly different from zero.”
  9. Gender diversity has become an increasingly prominent focus in the corporate governance conversation, with California recently becoming the first state to enact legislation instituting gender quotas for boards of directors of public companies headquartered in the state. In the current climate, it is prudent for public companies to work toward developing policies to promote equality in the workplace and ensure appropriate disclosure and shareholder engagement in that regard.

As we recently noted, with the (1) embrace of corporate purpose, ESG, and long-term investment strategy by BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, (2) adoption and promotion by the World Economic Forum of The New Paradigm: A Roadmap for an Implicit Corporate Governance Partnership Between Corporations and Investors to Achieve Sustainable Long-Term Investment and Growth, (3) enactment of a benefit corporation law by Delaware and some 30 states, (4) introduction of legislation by Senator Warren to achieve stakeholder corporate governance by way of mandatory federal incorporation, and (5) the activities of Focusing Capital on the Long Term, Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism and Investors Stewardship Group, it is clear that we are reaching a new inflection point in corporate governance.

However, it is unlikely that today’s elevated level of activism will be curbed by legislation, regulation or market forces in the near term. Companies will have to follow closely activist developments and the opinions of their major investors. Companies should perfect and maintain their engagement activities. Companies should regularly review and adjust their plans designed to avoid an activist attack and to successfully deal with an activist attack if one should occur.

________________________________________________________

Martin Lipton* is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum authored by Mr. Lipton and Zachary S. Podolsky . Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, and Wei Jiang (discussed on the Forum here); Dancing with Activists by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, Wei Jiang, and Thomas Keusch (discussed on the Forum here); and Who Bleeds When the Wolves Bite? A Flesh-and-Blood Perspective on Hedge Fund Activism and Our Strange Corporate Governance System by Leo E. Strine, Jr. (discussed on the Forum here).

Étude sur le mix des compétences dans la composition des conseils d’administration


Aujourd’hui, je vous recommande la lecture d’un article publié par Anthony Garcia, vice-président de la firme ISS, paru sur le forum de Harvard Law School, qui aborde le sujet des compétences (skills) requises pour siéger à un conseil d’administration.

Plus précisément, l’auteur explore la nature des compétences exigées des administrateurs ; comment celles-ci opèrent-elles pour améliorer les pratiques de gouvernance des entreprises ?

D’abord, il faut noter que la recherche de la diversité des compétences au sein des conseils d’administration est considérée comme un atout important ; cependant, les entreprises mettent encore l’accent sur les compétences et les expertises traditionnelles : le leadership, les connaissances financières, une expérience de CEO, une connaissance des marchés de l’entreprise et une familiarité avec la fonction audit.

L’étude montre aussi que les administrateurs récemment nommés ont des compétences plus diversifiées, notamment eu égard aux connaissances des marchés internationaux, aux compétences reliées aux ventes et à l’expertise dans le domaine des technologies de l’information (TI).

Également, l’étude montre que les femmes administratrices sont plus qualifiées que les hommes dans plusieurs types de compétences.

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « compétences des administrateurs »

Enfin, les entreprises qui ont une plus grande diversité de compétences sont plus susceptibles de divulguer leurs politiques de risques concernant la gouvernance, les aspects sociaux et les considérations environnementales (ESG).

L’auteur résume les caractéristiques d’une matrice des compétences jugée efficace. L’article comporte également plusieurs illustrations assez explicites.

 

A matrix that does more than “check the box”: The NYC Fund’s Boardroom Accountability Project 2.0 has focused on having companies disclose a “matrix” of skills, as well as race and gender, of the directors. The Project has a “compendium of best practices” that provides examples of the formats and details that are considered within the scope disclosure best-practices. With regard to race and gender, some of the examples disclosed gender and racial information in aggregate format while others listed the race and gender for each board member. With regard to skills, some companies simply listed the skills of each nominee; some provided a brief description of the underlying qualifications for the skill; some also broke out the director’s biography categorically based on the identified skills; the best examples also highlighted the relevance of the particular skill in the context of the company’s business.

Standardized skill disclosure: There is guidance for what constitutes a financial expert for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. While being a former or current CEO is straightforward answer for whether a director has that skill, something like technology is much less clear. Would working at a company in the information technology sector suffice? Does the director need to be a Chief Technology officer? Setting market standards would reduce the uncertainty and expense for each company to take on the responsibility individually and would also increase investor confidence in analyzing a board based on skills.

Skills mapped to specific responsibilities: The analysis shows that having a particular skill on the board will reduce ESG risks. However, a more in-depth assessment would also consider the skills that exist on the board’s committees and map those skills to the responsibilities of key committees. For example, if the board gives the audit committee oversight of cybersecurity, has the board included any audit committee members that have technology or risk management experience?

Bonne lecture !

 

Director Skills: Diversity of Thought and Experience in the Boardroom

 

 

Pour une gouvernance efficace des coopératives


Récemment, un ami qui prépare une conférence sur la gouvernance des coopératives me demanda si je pouvais lui procurer des références sur les spécificités de ce type d’organisation pour les administrateurs d’un CA en relation avec d’autres catégories d’entreprises.

J’ai réalisé que je n’avais pas beaucoup publié sur les coopératives comme mode d’organisation du travail. Le portail du gouvernement du Québec sur les coopératives est une mine d’informations très pertinentes pour toutes les questions concernant les coopératives. Les articles suivants sont importants pour bien définir le contexte :

Définition d’une coopérative

Gouvernance des coopératives

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « gouvernance des coopératives »

 

On y note que celles-ci constituent une grande part de l’économie québécoise et qu’elles sont présentes dans de nombreux secteurs d’activité économique.

Environ 3 300 coopératives et mutuelles sont actives au Québec. Elles regroupent 8,8 millions de producteurs, de consommateurs et de travailleurs. On les trouve notamment dans les secteurs :

– des services financiers et des assurances;

– de l’industrie agroalimentaire;

– de l’alimentation;

– de l’habitation;

– de l’industrie forestière;

– des services funéraires;

– des soins de santé et en milieu scolaire.

Les coopératives régies par la Loi sur les coopératives

Les quelque 2 800 coopératives non financières regroupent environ 1,3 million de membres. Ces entreprises procurent un emploi à plus de 46 000 personnes et font un chiffre d’affaires annuel global de plus de 14,5 milliards de dollars. Ces coopératives sont constituées juridiquement en vertu de la Loi sur les coopératives (RLRQ, c. C-67.2). Ce lien mène à un site qui n'est peut-être pas soumis au standard gouvernemental sur l'accessibilité..

Également, je crois que les deux références suivantes sont très utiles pour mieux comprendre la gouvernance :

 

Gouvernance et coopératives

LA GOUVERNANCE EFFICACE DES COOPÉRATIVES

Enfin, je vous soumets un Tableau comparatif entre une coopérative, une société par actions et un organisme à but non lucratif.

Bonne lecture !

 

Tableau comparatif entre une coopérative, une société par actions et un organisme à but non lucratif

COOPÉRATIVE SOCIÉTÉ PAR ACTIONS ORGANISME À BUT NON LUCRATIF (OBNL)
RLRQ, chapitre C-67.2
Loi sur les coopérativesLa loi est appliquée par la Direction du développement des coopératives du ministère de l’Économie, de la Science et de l’Innovation.		 RLRQ, chapitre S-31.1
Loi sur les sociétés par actionsLa loi est appliquée par le Registraire des entreprises.		 RLRQ, chapitre C-38
Loi sur les compagnies
Partie IIILa loi est appliquée par le Registraire des entreprises.
PARTICIPATION À LA PROPRIÉTÉ
Part sociale Action au porteur Capital social ou capital-actions
La part sociale est nominative.
Article 39		 Un certificat d’actions fait preuve que l’actionnaire a droit aux actions qui y sont représentées.
Article 63		 Inexistant
Article 224
La part sociale a une valeur nominale de 10 $, sauf dans une coopérative en milieu scolaire.
Articles 41 et 221.5		 Le capital-actions est sans valeur nominale, sauf disposition contraire des statuts.
Article 43
La part sociale est rachetable L’action est rachetable
Un membre peut obtenir, à certaines conditions, le remboursement de ses parts sociales à leur valeur nominale.
Articles 38, 38.1, 44 et 202		 La loi contient certaines dispositions spécifiques régissant l’achat et le rachat des actions.
Articles 93 et suiv.		 Ne s’applique pas.
Responsabilité des membres Responsabilité des actionnaires Responsabilité des membres
La responsabilité des membres est limitée au montant de leur souscription en capital social. Les membres ne sont pas personnellement responsables des dettes de la coopérative.
Articles 309 et 315 du Code civil du Québec (C.c.Q.)
 La responsabilité des actionnaires est limitée au montant non payé sur les actions qu’ils détiennent. Les actionnaires ne sont pas personnellement responsables des dettes de la société par actions.
Article 224		 La responsabilité des membres est limitée à l’obligation de verser une contribution fixée par règlement. Les membres ne sont pas personnellement responsables des dettes de l’organisme.
Articles 222 et 226
PARTICIPATION AU POUVOIR
Un membre, un vote Une action, un vote Un membre, un vote
Un membre n’a droit qu’à une seule voix, quel que soit le nombre de parts qu’il détient.
Articles 4 et 68		 L’actionnaire dispose habituellement d’une voix par action.
Article 179		 Un membre n’a droit qu’à une seule voix. Toutefois, les règlements peuvent limiter le droit de vote à certaines catégories de membres.
Article 225
Le vote par procuration est interdit Le vote par procuration est permis Le vote par procuration est interdit
Un membre ne peut voter par procuration.
Article 4		 Chaque actionnaire peut se faire représenter par son fondé de pouvoir.
Article 170		 Un membre ne peut voter par procuration.
Article 224
Il a le droit de se faire représenter par son conjoint ou son enfant majeur non membre, sous réserve des règlements.
Article 69
Responsabilités des administrateurs Responsabilités des administrateurs Responsabilités des administrateurs
Les administrateurs ont le rôle et les devoirs de mandataires de la coopérative.
Article 91
Articles 2138 et suiv. du C.c.Q.		 Les dirigeants ont le rôle et les devoirs de mandataires de la société par actions.
Article 116
Articles 2138 et suiv. du C.c.Q.		 Les administrateurs ont le rôle et les devoirs de mandataires de l’organisme.
Article 321 C.c.Q.
Articles 2138 et suiv. du C.c.Q.
Devoirs et responsabilités d’administrateurs d’une personne morale.
Articles 321 à 330 du C.c.Q.		 Devoirs et responsabilités d’administrateurs de la société par actions.
Articles 119 à 133		 Devoirs et responsabilités d’administrateurs d’une personne morale.
Articles 321 à 330 du C.c.Q.
Devoirs particuliers découlant de la Loi sur les coopératives.
Article 90		 Responsabilités découlant de la Loi sur les sociétés par actions.
Articles 154 à 158		 Responsabilités découlant de la Loi sur les compagnies.
Article 95
Responsabilités en vertu d’autres lois. Responsabilités en vertu d’autres lois. Responsabilités en vertu d’autres lois.
PARTICIPATION AUX RÉSULTATS
Intérêt sur le capital social Dividende
La loi décrète qu’aucun intérêt ne sera payable sur la part sociale. Par ailleurs, elle prévoit qu’un intérêt peut être payé sur la part privilégiée et que cet intérêt doit être limité par résolution du conseil d’administration. Enfin, un intérêt peut également être payé sur la part privilégiée participante, mais celui-ci doit être limité par règlement de la coopérative.
Articles 4, paragraphe 3
Articles 42, 46, 49.1 et 49.4		 La société par actions peut déclarer et payer tout dividende, sauf si elle ne peut de ce fait acquitter son passif à échéance.
Articles 103 à 105		 Ne s’applique pas.
La part sociale ne peut avoir de plus-value La valeur de l’action ordinaire est variable
L’article 38.1 stipule que seules les sommes payées sur les parts sociales des membres démissionnaires ou exclus leur sont remboursées. Comme l’article 147 décrète que la réserve ne peut être partagée entre les membres ou les membres auxiliaires, elle ne peut servir à conférer une plus-value sur ces parts. Un actionnaire peut vendre ses actions à une autre personne, à un prix convenu avec elle. La rentabilité de la société par actions et la valeur des bénéfices non répartis influent sur la valeur des actions. Ne s’applique pas.
Affectation des trop-perçus ou des excédents Affectation des profits Affectation des excédents
Les trop-perçus annuels sont affectés à la réserve ou attribués aux membres ou aux membres auxiliaires, sous forme de ristournes, au prorata des opérations de chacun avec la coopérative.
Articles 4, 143 et 149		 Les profits peuvent être distribués sous forme de dividendes, si les administrateurs en déclarent selon les droits prévus pour les différentes catégories d’actions. Ils peuvent être également réinvestis dans la société par actions.
 Les membres d’un organisme à but non lucratif n’ont aucun droit sur les biens ou les revenus de cet organisme. De plus, un organisme n’attribue pas de ristourne à ses membres.
Liquidation Liquidation Liquidation
Le titulaire de parts, dans le cas d’une liquidation, n’a droit qu’aux sommes versées sur ses parts. Le détenteur d’actions ordinaires, dans le cas d’une liquidation, participe au partage du reliquat des biens de la société.
Articles 47 et 48		 Le membre, dans le cas d’une liquidation, ne participe généralement pas à la distribution des biens de l’organisme.
Le liquidateur paie d’abord les dettes de la coopérative ainsi que les frais de liquidation et rembourse ensuite aux membres les sommes versées sur leurs parts, suivant la priorité établie par règlement ou résolution du conseil. Après ces versements, le solde de l’actif est dévolu à une coopérative, à une fédération, à une confédération ou au Conseil québécois de la coopération et de la mutualité, par une résolution adoptée à la majorité des voix exprimées.
Article 185
Cette disposition ne concerne pas certaines coopératives agricoles.
Article 208		 Le liquidateur recouvre les créances et exécute les obligations de la société par actions. Il effectue ensuite le partage du reliquat des biens conformément à une proposition de partage approuvée par les actionnaires.
Articles 337 à 346		 Les lettres patentes de la plupart des organismes à but non lucratif ordonnent que le résidu des biens soit remis à un autre organisme poursuivant des fins similaires. Dans ce cas, les membres n’ont aucun droit sur les biens de l’organisme.
Articles 28(2), 31(Q) et 224Toutefois, si les lettres patentes sont muettes sur cette question, les membres ont droit à ces biens au prorata entre eux.

Indice de diversité de genre | Equilar


Voici le dernier rapport de l’indice de diversité de genre (GDI) publié par Amit Batish, de la firme-conseil Equilar Inc.

Le texte est très explicite et abondamment illustré.

Dans l’ensemble, le pourcentage de femmes siégeant à des conseils d’administration du Russell 3000 est passé de 16,9 % à 17,7 % entre le 31 mars et le 30 juin 2018.

Durant la même période, plus du tiers des postes d’administrateurs ont été pourvus par des femmes.

Bonne lecture !

 

For a third consecutive quarter, the Equilar Gender Diversity Index (GDI) increased. The percentage of women on Russell 3000 boards increased from 16.9% to 17.7% between March 31 and June 30, 2018. This acceleration moved the needle, pushing the GDI to 0.35, where 1.0 represents parity among men and women on corporate boards.

One of the primary drivers of this steady GDI increase is the number of new directorships that have gone to women over the last few quarters. The chart below illustrates a consistent pace of growth of female directorships. In Q2 2018, more than one-third of new directorships went to women—this is a near three percentage point increase from the previous quarter and a pace that has almost doubled since 2014.

 

 

“In the first half of 2018 over 30% of newly-elected directors were women, which we believe indicates that companies are changing their approach to diversity,” said Brigid Rosati, Director of Business Development at Georgeson.

“It seems that companies are beginning to better understand the benefits that a more diverse board can bring, but are also in some cases responding to signs of increased interest from investors, including in the way they vote in director elections.”

 

 

In Q1 2018 the percentage of all male Russell 3000 boards fell to 19.5%, the first time ever that this figure sat below 20%. That figure continued to dip in Q2 2018, falling to 17.1%—a 2.4 percentage point drop. This data is certainly a promising sign that boards are making a concerted effort to promote diversity in the boardroom and that male-dominant boardrooms are becoming less prevalent. However, this is still a relatively sizable figure that indicates possible hurdles do indeed remain.

“Progress on diversity continues to be slow but it is continuing to move for the most part,” said Susan Angele, Senior Advisor of Board Governance at KPMG’s Board Leadership Center.

“Depending on the board’s own network, it may take a larger investment of time and effort to find the right person to add diversity as well as skill set, and having a diversity champion on the board driving the search may make a difference.”

 

Pressure Begins to Mount From Investors and Lawmakers

 

One of the many reasons that boards have lagged progress on the topic of diversity is that historically, there has been little pressure from investors or other key stakeholders to regularly advocate for such initiatives.

However, over the last year or so, gender diversity has become an area of focus across corporate America. There have been numerous efforts from various sources including institutional investors, regulators and lawmakers. In the Q1 2018 GDI report, Equilar cited 2017 as being banner year for shareholder engagement around gender diversity on boards, beginning with State Street’s “Fearless Girl” statue of a young woman facing o with the Wall Street Bull to bring awareness to gender diversity.

The gesture won a major advertising award, but State Street also voted against hundreds of directors on boards that did not have women. Subsequently, BlackRock voted in favor of several shareholder proposals that requested more disclosure around diversity in 2017, and earlier in 2018, sent letters to all Russell 1000 companies that had fewer than two women on their boards.

“In addition to investor focus, I see a confluence of events that should play out over time,” said Angele.

“The changes in the business environment and expectations on boards—including technological disruption, competition coming from outside the industry, changing demographics, culture and risk—all of these forces are making it more important for the boardroom to include directors with a mix of backgrounds and experience.”

Additionally, lawmakers have begun to get more involved with issues regarding gender diversity. For instance, by August 31, 2018, California could become the first state in the nation to mandate publicly held companies that base their operations in the state to have women on their boards. The legislation—SB 826—will require public companies headquartered in California to have a minimum of one female on its board of directors by December 31, 2019. That minimum will be raised to at least two female board members for companies with five directors or at least three female board members for companies with six or more directors by December 31, 2021. Violators of this legislation will be subject to financial consequences.

A new Equilar study examined how California fared against the United States as a whole with respect to women on boards. According to the study, California is slightly below other states and the national average in terms of average women on a board. California, on average, has 1.65 female members per board, whereas other states and the United States as a whole average 1.76 and 1.75 female members, respectively.

 

 

As legislators become more involved in matters of diversity, one might expect that progress toward greater female board representation will continue. The last few quarters alone have shown signs of progress, and this is before any significant quotas had been put in place. It would come as no surprise that the number of boards achieving parity continues to increase year-over-year following implementation of gender quotas across the nation.

Boards That Have Reached Parity Are Becoming More Prevalent

 

In combination of numerous factors, some previously mentioned in this article, since the inception of the GDI study, the number of Russell 3000 boards that achieved gender parity has steadily increased in most quarters. The Q2 2018 GDI revealed the largest quarter-over-quarter increase in the number of boards that have achieved parity to date, reaching 39—an increase of eight from the previous quarter and a spike of 18 from the end of 2016. The list of boards at parity is at the bottom of this article.

The number of boards that have between 40% and 50% is rising regularly as well. Collectively, 71 boards now have at least 40% women, up from 62 in the previous quarter.

“Several large institutional investors updated their proxy voting policies in 2018, which we think could continue to drive change beyond the significant progress we saw in the first half of 2018,” said Rosati. “Beyond this, we believe that continued media coverage and scrutiny means that we will see continued pressure from investors towards companies with zero women on their boards.”

___________________________________________________________________________

About Equilar Gender Diversity Index

The Equilar GDI reflects changes on Russell 3000 boards on a quarterly basis as cited in 8-K lings to the SEC. Most indices that track information about board diversity do so annually or even less frequently, and typically with a smaller sample size, sometimes looking back more than a full year by the time the information is published. While this data is reliable and accurate, the Equilar GDI aims to capture the influence of the increasing calls for diversity from investors and other stakeholders in real time.

En quoi une formation en gouvernance des TI est-elle essentielle ?


Plusieurs personnes me demandent s’il existe une formation en gouvernance des TI à l’intention de membres de conseils d’administration et des hauts dirigeants.

Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) offre une formation ciblée d’une journée en gouvernance des TI, même si vous n’êtes pas un spécialiste en la matière.

Bon nombre d’administrateurs se sentent démunis et mal à l’aise lorsque vient le temps de discuter des dossiers de TI au conseil d’administration et de prendre des décisions importantes et stratégiques pour l’entreprise.
Cette formation d’une journée en gouvernance des TI vous donnera des assises solides pour comprendre et bien jouer votre rôle, et ce même si vous n’êtes pas un spécialiste en la matière.

Paule-Anne Morin, ASC, consultante, administratrice de sociétés et formatrice a conçu une formation spécialisée de haut niveau pour combler ce grand besoin.

 

 

Thèmes abordés lors de la journée

 

Gouvernance des TI : pourquoi faut-il s’y intéresser ?

Tremplin stratégique dans la performance des organisations : des outils concrets

Enjeux numériques et gestion de risques

Outils de mesure et de performance TI

CA et gouvernance des TI : rôle, structure et conditions de succès

Profil des participants

 

– Membres de conseils d’administration

– Hauts dirigeants

– Gestionnaires

– Investisseurs

 

Prochaines sessions de formation

 

23 octobre 2018 — Québec

De 8 h à 18 h
Édifice Price
65, rue Sainte-Anne
11e étage Québec (Québec)  G1R 3X5

 

28 mars 2019 — Montréal

De 8 h à 18 h
Centre de conférence Le 1000
Niveau Mezzanine
1000, rue De La Gauchetière Ouest
Montréal (Québec)  H3B 4W5

 

Inscrivez-vous ici

 

 

Information

Consultez la page Gouvernance des TI sur le site du CAS pour obtenir tous les détails.

Reconnaissance professionnelle

Cette formation, d’une durée de 7,5 heures, est reconnue aux fins des règlements ou des politiques de formation continue obligatoire du Collège et des ordres et organismes professionnels suivants : Barreau du Québec, Ordre des ADMA du Québec, Ordre des CPA du Québec, Ordre des CRHA et Association des MBA du Québec.

Les enjeux de la diffusion des informations stratégiques sur les réseaux sociaux


Ce matin un article de Alissa Amico*, paru sur le forum de Harvard Law School, a attiré mon attention parce que c’est sur un sujet qui fait couler beaucoup d’encre dans le domaine la gouvernance des entreprises publiques (cotées en bourse).

En effet, quels sont les moyens appropriés de diffusion et de divulgation des informations à l’ère des médias sociaux ? L’auteure fait le tour de la question en rappelant qu’il existe encore beaucoup d’ambiguïté dans l’acceptation des nouveaux outils de communication.

On le sait, la SEC a réagi promptement aux annonces de Elon Musk, PDG et Chairman de Telsa, faites par le biais de Twitter qui ont été jugées trompeuses et qui ne respectaient pas le principe d’une diffusion de l’information à la portée de tous les actionnaires.

L’auteure rappelle que l’Autorité des Marchés Financiers français a pris une position ferme à ce propos en exigeant que les entreprises divulguent leurs réseaux sociaux privilégiés de communication sur leur site Internet.

La conclusion de l’article est révélatrice de grands changements à l’égard de la diffusion d’information stratégique.

The ultimate twist of irony is of course that the SEC, investigating Tesla and its CEO, is part of the same government whose President’s tweeting activity has been far from uncontroversial. Both Mr. Musk’s and Mr. Trump’s use of Twitter highlight that—whether we like it or not—social media may soon be the most consulted sort of media. Its impact, in both corporate or political circles, needs hence to be considered by policymakers seriously. It is clear that every boat—whether corporate or political—needs a captain responsible for setting the course and communicating it to the lighthouse to avoid collisions and confusion at sea. Yet, captains are not pirates, and in the era of social media, regulators need to devise new rules of the game to avoid investor collusion and collision.

Qu’en pensez-vous ?

Bonne lecture !

 

On Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and Corporate Governance

 

 

Résultats de recherche d'images pour « Elon Musk SEC »
SEC sues Tesla CEO Elon Musk for ‘misleading’ tweet »- ABC News

 

There was something Trumpian in Elon Musk’s tweet about taking Tesla private. “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured”, he boldly and succinctly announced on August 7, claiming that the necessary capital has been confirmed from the Public Investment Fund (PIF), the Saudi sovereign fund that is seeking to become the region’s largest according to the ambitions of its government, including through the much-debated public offering of Saudi Aramco.

Like in a Mexican soap opera, news about the PIF raising fresh capital through the transfer of its 70% stake in SABIC, the Saudi $100 billion petrochemicals giant and the largest listed company in the Kingdom to Saudi Aramco, as well its talks with Tesla’s rival Lucid followed shortly, immediately highlighting the perils of instant communication. As it turns out, tweeting 280-character messages is straightforward, explaining them takes a little more character and significantly more characters.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has reacted promptly, issuing a subpoena to Tesla to probe into the accuracy of its communication to investors. Elon Musk is unfortunately not the first CEO to pay for taking to Twitter. Nestle’s attempt at humor on Twitter, which likened a massacre of Mexican students to its candy bar, resulted in calls for boycott, ultimately forcing the company to erase the message and apologize. Even the CEO of Twitter itself, Jack Dorsey, has had to apologize for one of his personal tweets, which unlike Tesla and Nestle cases, had nothing to do with his company.

Indeed, the emergence of new communication channels has occurred at a faster pace than regulation on how these should be employed by companies has emerged, whilst over-excited executives have taken to social media in attempt to build hype around their companies. In the world where the number of Instagram, Twitter and Facebook followers counts more than the number of public investors, social media has the potential of becoming the main channel for communication in the corporate world.

Although this phenomenon has gone largely unnoticed, its implications need to be considered in a wider context that is beyond this immediate Bermuda Triangle involving Mr. Musk, the PIF and Tesla. In fact, this episode raises two important and distinct questions: first, who should be able to speak on behalf of public shareholding companies in order to ensure the accuracy of communication, and second, how should this communication be made such that it reaches its ultimate target, the investor community.

In developed markets such as the United States, where Tesla is incorporated, disclosure by public companies is subject to a myriad of regulations including Rule 10b-5—first issued 70 years ago—which prohibits the release or omission of material information, resulting in fraud or deceit. It is also subject to a more recent Fair Disclosure Regulation which essentially forbids companies from releasing non-public material information to third parties, effectively stamping out the practice of selective disclosure by companies to specific investors.

These regulations provide the colorful context behind the SEC’s investigation into Mr. Musk’s unfortunate tweet, allowing the regulator to question whether he had misled investors: that is, whether funding for taking Tesla private has indeed been “secured”. Another issue—and one not raised in the media—is whether Twitter can effectively be considered as an appropriate means of communication to the investor community. In the United States, where 70% of public share ownership today is in the hands of institutional investors, this is a moot point.

Indeed, the SEC has officially allowed listed companies to use social media in 2013, prompted by an investigation into a Facebook post by the Netflix CEO Reed Hastings about the company passing a billion hours watched for the first time. The SEC did not penalize him and decided that henceforth social media could be used for communicating corporate announcements as long as investors are warned that this would be the case.

In the context of emerging markets however, this position would be potentially quite dangerous. In Saudi Arabia for example, home to the PIF—Tesla’s alleged buyer—trading in the stock market is 90% retail, whereas its underlying ownership is largely institutional. Communicating company news via social media presupposes that all investors have equal access to it, which may not necessarily be the case in retail marketplaces. Regulators in emerging markets, where guidelines on the use of social media for corporate announcements are generally lacking, would do well to address this before executives take to Twitter and Facebook.

They would need to keep in mind however, that habits of emerging market investors may not have shifted fast enough to be comfortable in the world of Twitter. In Egypt for example, the officially recognised channel for publishing financial results remains the country’s newspapers. Expecting investors to run from conventional—not to say outdated—means of communication, to judiciously tracking social media announcements appears overly ambitious.

Using social media as a means of communicating material corporate news raises another non-semantic point which is equally important to address in both emerging and developed markets. It is not only tweets of CEOs like Elon Musk that have the potential to affect share prices and investor perceptions. If CFOs, CROs, CIOs, COOs and other C-suite members take to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or other platforms to offer their interpretation of company developments, the potential impact on investors could be quite disheartening.

Just like the CEO’s or the CFO’s ability to write a cheque is circumscribed by internal controls and board oversight of material transactions related to mergers and acquisitions for instance, their ability to speak on behalf of their companies should be addressed by policies including specific approval processes. This would effectively limit the possibility of senior executives or board members using their iPhone as a Megaphone, instead requiring rigorous processes to be introduced such that social media announcements are coherent with other disclosure channels and indeed with corporate strategy.

From a governance perspective, further thought should be given to centralizing the communication function within companies in the hands of the Head of Investor Relations or equivalent. Indeed, given the value of information in our era of fast-paced communication powered by social media and fast-paced stock exchanges powered by algorithmic and high-frequency trading, the role of a Chief Communication Officer may be justified in large publicly listed companies, just as the role of a Chief Risk Officer reporting to the board has been introduced in many large organisations following the financial crisis.

While forcing companies in a straightjacket of yet more corporate governance rules on how they should handle their corporate communications may be unwise, some thought about legal distinctions and limits between what is considered personal and corporate announcements appears warranted. Investors may need to be told that unless corporate announcements come from official company channels—which personal Twitter accounts are not—their interpretation of tweets by excited executives are to be made at their own peril, not subject to usual investor protections.

Likewise, publicly-traded companies need to inform the investor community of what constitutes their official communication channels and ensure that financial and non-financial information announced through these is pre-approved, synchronized and not in conflict with existing regulations. Some regulators such as the French securities regulator, Authorité des Marches Financiers, has done so almost 5 years ago, recommending that companies specify their social media accounts on their website as well as establish a charter addressing how executives and staff are to use their personal social media accounts.

The ultimate twist of irony is of course that the SEC, investigating Tesla and its CEO, is part of the same government whose President’s tweeting activity has been far from uncontroversial. Both Mr. Musk’s and Mr. Trump’s use of Twitter highlight that—whether we like it or not—social media may soon be the most consulted sort of media. Its impact, in both corporate or political circles, needs hence to be considered by policymakers seriously. It is clear that every boat—whether corporate or political—needs a captain responsible for setting the course and communicating it to the lighthouse to avoid collisions and confusion at sea. Yet, captains are not pirates, and in the era of social media, regulators need to devise new rules of the game to avoid investor collusion and collision.

 

*Alissa Amico is the Managing Director of GOVERN. This post is based on a GOVERN memorandum by Ms. Amico.