Un guide pour améliorer les communications entre l’entreprise et ses investisseurs | ICSA


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un document de l’Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (ICSA) qui se veut un guide de bonnes pratiques en vue de faciliter les communications entre l’entreprise et ses investisseurs institutionnels. Le guide est particulièrement intéressant en ce sens qu’il met l’accent sur des moyens concrets d’accroître la qualité des rencontres entre les deux parties. Voici le sommaire exécutif du guide :

New Guidance : Enhancing Stewardship Dialogue

  1. This guidance, developed jointly by companies and institutional investors, is intended to facilitate good engagement practices. This is important in supporting long-term investment, based on increased levels of trust between a company and its owners.
  2. The guidance has been designed to provide practical advice on: (1) making meetings between companies and institutional investors more productive – helping make the best use of all participants’ time, and creating the optimum conditions for dialogue (2) creating a more meaningful dialogue between companies and institutional investors – outside of the traditional results season – on strategy and long-term performance (3) improving the feedback process – in both directions – between companies and institutional investors on the quality of meetings (4) using the learning developed as a result to improve engagement practices.
  3. The guidance emphasises four key messages: (A) The need to develop an engagement strategy (B) The importance of getting housekeeping issues right (C) Strengthening the conversation on strategy and long-term performance (D) Providing feedback in a way that adds value for all participants.
  4. A key principle of the guidance is that that there should be a regular and consistent process of engagement, over time, between a company and its key investors, in order to establish, develop and maintain relationships. For these reasons, both companies and institutional investors need to have a clear understanding of each other’s expectations in terms of the nature and frequency of engagement; avoid an automatic presumption that there is ‘no need’ to pursue engagement; and should review this understanding periodically to ensure its continuing relevance.
  5. The guidance suggests there may be benefits for a company in developing a critical mass of shareholders who can provide constructive engagement, and outlines some considerations for the use of collective meetings.
  6. The one particular area of engagement which the guidance recommends strengthening concerns the conversation on strategy and long-term sustainable performance. Once a year, a company and its owners should focus on the company’s approach to creating value, and protecting that value, looking at issues such as strategy, performance, succession, board effectiveness, culture, risk and reputation. Individual issues, such as remuneration, should be placed in that context, rather than dominating the wider strategy discussion.
  7. Feedback – in both directions – between companies and institutional investors, is an important means of assessing the degree to which each other’s expectations have been met in terms of the quality and quantity of engagement activity. Honest, nuanced, constructive and, as necessary, challenging feedback is best for all parties.

Communications entre le C.A et les actionnaires | Prise de position de Richard Leblanc


Dans un article à être publié bientôt, Richard Leblanc* répond à certaines questions concernant les meilleures pratiques de gouvernance eu égard à la communications entre le C.A. et les actionnaires. Voici trois points de vue de l’auteur publiés dans le groupe de discussion Board & Advisors de LinkedIn :

(1) “Management needs to be instructed by the Chairman not to interfere with shareholder engagement performed by directors. Directors are the agents of shareholders and shareholders want to talk to their elected representatives about governance matters. This is not the day-to-day business of the company.

communication
communication (Photo credit: flavijus)

Management speaks for the company; directors speak for the shareholders and management should not be involved in, nor causing undo influence over, that relationship. The Chair of the SEC was abundantly clear, that reg. FD is not a barrier to board-shareholder communication and fair disclosure speaks to matters of material information, not governance matters.”

(2) « Boards should retain their own counsel, independent of that of management, when seeking counsel on what they should and should not say in their outreach to shareholders.”

(3) “Not only do directors need to step up in this responsibility for open communication, but also shareholders need to step up and meet with directors and be transparent in those communications.”

____________________________________

* Richard W. Leblanc, Associate Professor, Law, Governance & Ethics, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies, York University. Dr Leblanc has served as an external advisor to boards that have won national awards and peer endorsement from institutional shareholders for their corporate governance practices and has also acted as a corporate governance expert witness in recent years. He has conducted over two hundred director interviews and has studied, advised and/or assessed dozens of boards in action. This work has spanned audit, compensation, nominating and governance committees, chairs of boards, chairs of board committees and CEOs. Click here for more.

Que font les « bons » administrateurs pour faciliter le succès des organisations ? (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Pratiques exemplaires en matière de divulgation d’information concernant les administrateurs | CCGG (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Quelles sont les attentes du C.A. envers la direction, et vice-versa ? (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Engagement accru des investisseurs institutionnels avec les C.A. et les directions en 2012 (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)