Voici un rapport très attendu et d’un grand intérêt pour tout « étudiant » de la saine gouvernance européenne. On le sait, dans les États européens, le principe CoE (Comply or Explain – Se conformer au Code de gouvernance ou expliquer) est devenu, en 2009, une obligation pour les entreprises publiques (cotées). Les principes retenus ont été empruntés au Code de gouvernance de la G-B, lequel a été reconnu comme le meilleur du point de vue du monde des investisseurs.
Ce compte rendu est issu d’une conférence sur le sujet organisée par ecoDa (European Confederation of Directors’ Associations) dont le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) est membre. Ce rapport conclue qu’il y a un besoin de renforcer le principe du CoE et que plus d’efforts et de moyens doivent être consentis à la qualité des explications ainsi qu’aux suivis de ces explications. Je vous invite à lire ce bref rapport pour vous former une meilleure opinion de la position européennes en matière d’application des codes de gouvernance des pays membres.
« Comply or Explain (CoE) offers the flexibility to fit with the large diversity among and within the different EU Member States. The quality of explanation is the core factor for upgrading the legitimacy of the CoE approach. However, defining the quality requirements is not a straightforward exercise. With its printed report, ecoDa wanted to feed further the debate and to enhance the European discussions.
Explaining (Photo credit: theother66)
For some years, the quality of governance in general and of the explanations for not following the recommended best practices specified in corporate governance codes has been a key issue for policy makers, investors, companies and wider society. However, different factors have played a role in the gradual improvement of the quality of explanations. More should be done to increase the effectiveness of the governance codes and to foster a better dialogue between companies and their shareholders. Transparency and monitoring are only a first step in the direction of a well-governed company. Complementary monitoring capability is best provided by a regular and thorough (independent) governance (or board) assessment. Companies should develop a governance model that helps them to reach the corporate goal and allows them to make effective decisions in the long term interest of the company, shareholders and stakeholders. The board is a crucial factor to this end. But also shareholders have to play their role to foster growth, strategy, entrepreneurship and sustainability ».
« People should not forget that governance is not an end in itself but a means to an end ».
Vous trouverez dans ce billet deux documents produit par l’European Confederation of Directors’ Associations(ecoDa), partenaire du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS), qui sont susceptibles d’intéresser les personnes qui se préoccupent de gouvernance européenne.
Le premier document est un compte rendu d’une conférence commanditée par ecoDa et l’European Confederation of Institutes of Internal Auditors (ECIIA) et qui porte sur le processus d’audit interne. C’est un rapport synthèse vraiment pertinent pour les spécialistes du contrôle interne.
The legislative triangle of the European Union (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
« This paper seeks to provide useful guidance to boards, governing bodies and individual directors that wish to make effective use of the internal audit function, particularly in respect of gaining assurance concerning the adequacy of an organisation’s risk management and internal control systems. Internal audit is a key component of modern corporate governance. However, board structures and corporate governance systems exhibit significant variation across Europe. In some countries (e.g. the UK, France), the board consists of both senior members of management and non-executive directors. In other countries (e.g. Germany, Netherlands, or the Nordic countries), the board or supervisory board may be entirely composed of non-executive board members. In such circumstances, senior management may sit on a separate executive board or be excluded from the board altogether. Notwithstanding the variation in corporate governance systems across Europe, there are some basic characteristics of governance frameworks that are typical in most countries:
The board provides direction to senior management by setting the organisation’s risk appetite. It also seeks to identify the most significant risks facing the organisation. Thereafter, the board assures itself on an ongoing basis that senior management is responding appropriately to these risks.
The CEO and senior management are delegated primary ownership responsibility for the operational functioning of an organisation’s risk management and control framework. It is management’s job to provide leadership and direction to the employees in respect of risk management, and to control the organisation’s overall risk-taking activities in relation to the agreed level of risk appetite.
To ensure the effectiveness of an organization’s risk management framework, the board and senior management need to be able to rely on adequate line functions – including monitoring and assurance functions – within the organisation. In order to conceptualise these line functions, ecoDa and the ECIIA endorse the use of the “Three lines of Defence” model which is already widely adopted within the financial industry, but which can also be productively utilised in a wide range of sectors. The “Three lines of Defence” structure is a conceptual delineation of an organisation’s internal control levels: first line controls, second level monitoring controls and third-line independent assurance. It also provides a framework with which the board can understand the role of internal audit in the overall risk management and internal control process of an organisation ».
Le deuxième document est également très intéressant; il concerne la position européenne en ce qui a trait au « Comply or Explain » et présente les recommandations d’ecoDa sur le sujet.
Voici un extrait de la récente conférence annuelle qui portait sur le « Comply or Explain » :
English: Constituency for the European Parliament election in 2009 Español: Mapa por el Elecciones al Parlamento Europeo de 2009 Français : Circonscriptions aux élections européennes en 2009 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
« Throughout Europe, the governance of listed companies is reigned by governance codes that offer the companies a frame of reference based on best practices, which companies are supposed to comply with, or in the case of non-compliance those companies are (now) legally obliged to explain why they deviate from the code’s recommendation. Consequently, comply-or-explain (CoE) in general and the quality of explanations more specifically is expected to be one of the top priorities of the European Action Plan on corporate governance.
The 2008 ISS/Risk Metrics study – to which ecoDa as a partner organization contributed actively – demonstrated that there was widespread support for this flexible approach but at the same time revealed that the quality of explanations deserved special attention. Although governance practices have improved considerably since then, the European Commission stated in its 2011Governance Green Paper that the quality of the explanations still offers substantial room for improvement. Although the Commission so far has dealt with this issue with caution and pragmatism, some make a plea for abandoning all together the flexibility the governance codes offer.
Convinced that such a move would be detrimental to a substantive improvement of thegovernance practices and would even be unfeasible for the largest part of the more qualitative governance recommendations, ecoDa – the Voice of European Directors – took the initiative to organize a European Conference on this theme. ecoDa is convinced that only an improvement of the quality of explanations can safeguard the flexibility offered today by the European governance approach ».
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 