Les autorités réglementaires, les firmes spécialisées en votation et les experts en gouvernance suggèrent que les rôles et les fonctions de président du conseil d’administration soient distincts des attributions des PDG (CEO).
En fait, on suppose que la séparation des fonctions, entre la présidence du conseil et la présidence de l’entreprise (CEO), est généralement bénéfique, c’est-à-dire que des pouvoirs distincts permettent d’éviter les conflits d’intérêts, tout en rassurant les actionnaires.
C’est ce que les professeurs de finance Harley Ryan*, Narayanan Jayaraman et Vikram Nanda ont tenté de valider empiriquement dans leur récente étude sur le sujet. L’article a paru aujourd’hui dans le forum du Harvard Law School on Corporate Governance. Comme on le sait, la plupart des études antérieures ne sont pas concluantes à cet égard.
Les auteurs ont proposé un modèle d’apprentissage de la dualité des deux fonctions en identifiant une stratégie basée sur la préparation de la relève : “passing the baton” (PTB). Dans ce modèle, les administrateurs s’allouent une période de probation afin de bien connaître les habiletés de leurs nouveaux CEO.
Si les membres du CA sont rassurés sur les talents du CEO et s’ils sont satisfaits de ses performances, ils lui attribuent également le poste de « chairman ». Le pouvoir accru du CEO améliore la rétention des meilleurs éléments.
Les résultats de la recherche montrent que les CEO qui ont obtenu le titre de « chairman » dans ces conditions (PTB) tendent à mieux réussir qu’avant la nomination à ce poste. De plus, les actionnaires sont plutôt réceptifs à ce mode de nomination, surtout si la promotion est faite dans un court délai, car cela leur indique que le CEO constitue une valeur sûre pour l’organisation.
Les auteurs insistent sur l’importance de considérer les mécanismes d’apprentissage en place (PTB) ainsi que les objectifs de rétention des meilleurs CEO dans l’évaluation des structures de gouvernance.
Ainsi, les actionnaires ne sont pas toujours nécessairement mieux servis par la séparation des deux rôles. Notons cependant qu’en général, les sociétés cotées ont de plus en plus tendance à séparer les deux fonctions.
Le billet paru sur mon blogue le 17 novembre 2015 fait état de la situation à ce jour :
Les études contemporaines démontrent une nette tendance en faveur de la séparation des deux rôles. Le Canadian Spencer Stuart Board Index estime qu’une majorité de 85 % des 100 plus grandes entreprises canadiennes cotées en bourse ont opté pour la dissociation entre les deux fonctions. Dans le même sens, le rapport Clarkson affiche que 84 % des entreprises inscrites à la bourse de Toronto ont procédé à ladite séparation. Subsistent cependant encore de nos jours des entreprises canadiennes qui permettent le cumul. L’entreprise Air Transat A.T. Inc en est la parfaite illustration : M. Jean-Marc Eustache est à la fois président du conseil et chef de la direction. A contrario, le fond de solidarité de la Fédération des travailleurs du Québec vient récemment de procéder à la séparation des deux fonctions.
Aux États-Unis en 2013, 45 % des entreprises de l’indice S&P500 (au total 221 entreprises) dissocient les rôles de PDG et de président du conseil. Toutefois, les choses ne sont pas aussi simples qu’elles y paraissent : 27 % des entreprises de cet indice ont recombiné ces deux rôles. Évoquons à ce titre le cas de Target Corp dont les actionnaires ont refusé la dissociation des deux fonctions .
Est-ce dans l’air du temps ? Est-ce le résultat d’études sérieuses sur les principes de bonne gouvernance ?
Comme on dit souvent en management : Ça dépend des cas !
Considerable disagreement exists on the merits of CEO-Chair duality. In recent years, there has been growing regulatory and investor pressure to split the titles of CEO and Chairman of the Board. In fact, there is a significant trend towards separation of the two titles. However, the empirical evidence in the literature is inconclusive on the impact of separating these roles. We argue that the inconclusive evidence arises from endogenous self-selection that complicates empirical identification strategies and the ability to recognize the correct counterfactual firms.
In our paper, Does Combining the CEO and Chair Roles Cause Poor Firm Performance?, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we propose a learning model of CEO-chair duality and implement an identification strategy to address sample selection issues. Our model and identification is based on “passing the baton” (PTB) firms that award the chair position after a probationary period during which the board of directors learns about the ability of the CEO. In the model, the board optimally awards the additional position of board chair if the CEO demonstrates sufficient talent. The increase in CEO power improves the retention of high-quality CEOs by mitigating concerns about the board reneging on compensation contracts. The model delivers several implications that we test in our empirical analysis.
Using a very large sample of over 22,000 firm-year observations for the period 1995-2010, we explore the determinants and consequences of the combining the two roles. Firms that always combine the two roles, always separate the roles, or award the additional title following a period of evaluation exhibit significantly different firm characteristics, which suggest self-selection. We find that PTB firms are more likely to be from industries that are less homogenous. This is consistent with a learning rationale underlying PTB strategies: CEO performance is harder to benchmark in such industries and reneging on contracts may be of greater concern to CEOs. We also find that firms with more business segments are more likely to combine the two roles. These findings suggest that more complex organizations are better served by combining the roles of the CEO and the Chairman.
Overall, CEOs that receive the additional title of board chair outperform their industry benchmark before receiving both titles. In firms that combine the roles after observing the CEO’s performance under a separate board chair, the combination is positively related to both firm and industry performance in the two years prior to the combination. As predicted by our model, a naïve analysis of the post-chair appointment performance, one that fails to control for selection issues and mean reversion in performance data, indicates a significant drop in firm performance relative to the pre-chair period. However, in a matched sample of firms where the matching criteria includes the pre-appointment performance and firm attributes that predict a high propensity for using a PTB succession strategy, there is no evidence of post-appointment underperformance. These results suggest that the pass-the-baton succession process appears to be an equilibrium mechanism in which some firms optimally use the PTB structure to learn about the CEO and then award the additional title of board chair to increase the odds of retaining talented CEOS. Thus, the evidence is broadly consistent with the learning hypothesis that the additional title is awarded by the board after evaluating the ability of the CEO.
Our model suggests that, ceteris paribus, talented CEOs in a weaker bargaining position relative to the board will tend to be promoted to chair more quickly. The reason is that more vulnerable CEOs are more likely to pursue outside opportunities. Supportive of the prediction, we find that when the board is more independent, is not coopted and the CEO is externally sourced—the promotion to chair occurs more quickly. These findings are also counter to the notion that agency considerations and influence are central to the CEO being appointed chairman. We also show that stockholders react positively to combinations that occur early in the CEO’s tenure, which suggests that early promotions reveal directors’ private information about the quality of the CEO to the market. This is inconsistent with alternative explanations such as an incentive rationale for PTB or agency problem, since both of these alternatives would suggest a negative market reaction to such promotions.
A major implication of our analysis for researchers is that one should consider learning mechanisms and retention objectives when evaluating various board structures. Structures that are seemingly incompatible with effective monitoring may in fact be optimal when one considers the impact of learning on retention. For governance activists and policy makers, the implications of our analysis are straightforward: the results call into question the prevailing wisdom that suggests that shareholders will always be better served by separating the two roles. Thus, those who seek to reform governance should be cautious in proposing to unambiguously separate the roles of CEO and board chair. Forcing separation by fiat is likely not an ideal policy. Overall our evidence suggests that having one type of executive and board leadership structure is not optimal for all firms.
Harley Ryan* is Associate Professor of Finance at Georgia State University, Narayanan Jayaraman is Professor of Finance at Georgia Institute of Technology et Vikram Nanda is Professor of Finance at the University of Texas at Dallas.
Les théories contemporaines de la gouvernance sont basées sur le modèle de la « maximisation de la valeur aux actionnaires ».
Dans un article paru sur le forum du Harvard Law School on Corporate Governance, l’auteur Marc Moore* explique que, malgré l’émergence d’autres paradigmes des rouages de la gouvernance moderne (Post — Shareholders-Values | PSV), c’est encore le modèle de la maximisation de la valeur aux actionnaires qui domine.
C’est ainsi que le nouveau modèle de réallocation des profits des PSV, qui favoriserait le développement interne de l’entreprise et les investissements à long terme, cède le pas, la plupart du temps, à la redistribution des surplus aux actionnaires, notamment par la voie des dividendes ou par le rachat des actions.
Voici comment l’auteur conclut son article. Quel est votre point de vue ?
The somewhat uncomfortable truth for many observers is that, for better or worse, the American system of shareholder capitalism, and its pivotal corporate governance principle of shareholder primacy, are ultimately products of our own collective (albeit unintentional) civic design. Accordingly, while in many respects the orthodox shareholder-oriented corporate governance framework may be a social evil; it is nonetheless a necessary evil, which US worker-savers implicitly tolerate as the effective social price for sustaining a system of non-occupational income provision outside of direct state control. Until corporate governance scholars and policymakers are capable of coordinating their respective energies towards somehow alleviating US worker-savers’ significant dependence on corporate equity as a source of non-occupational wealth gains, the shareholder-oriented corporation is likely to remain a socially indispensable phenomenon. To those who rue this prospect, it might be retorted “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.”
Despite their differences of opinion on other issues, most corporate law and governance scholars have tended to agree upon one thing at least: that the overarching normative objective of corporate governance—and, by implication, corporate law—should be the maximization (or, at least, long-term enhancement) of shareholder wealth. Indeed this proposition—variously referred to as the “shareholder wealth maximization”, “shareholder value”, or “shareholder primacy” norm—is so ingrained within mainstream corporate governance thinking that it has traditionally been subjected to little serious policy or even academic question. However, the zeitgeist would appear to be slowly but surely changing. The financial crisis may not quite have proved the watershed moment it was initially heralded as in terms of resetting dominant currents of economic or political opinion. Nonetheless, in the narrower but still important domain of corporate governance thinking and policymaking, the past decade’s events have triggered the onset of what promises to be a potentially major paradigm shift in the direction of an evolving “Post-Shareholder-Value” (or “PSV”) consensus.
On an academic level, this movement is represented by a growing body of influential legal and economic scholarship which contests most of the staple ideological tenets of orthodox corporate governance theory. Amongst the most noteworthy contributions to this literature are Professor Lynn Stout’s influential 2012 book The Shareholder Value Myth (Berret-Koehler), and also Professor Colin Mayer’s excellent 2013 work Firm Commitment: Why the corporation is failing us and how to restore trust in it (Oxford University Press). In particular, proponents of the PSV paradigm typically dismiss the common neo-classical equation of shareholder wealth maximization with economic efficiency in the broader social sense. They also typically eschew individualistic understandings of the firm in terms of its purported internal bargaining dynamics, in favour of alternative conceptual models which celebrate the distinctive value of the corporation’s inherently autonomous corporeal features.
Evidence of a potential drift from the formerly dominant shareholder primacy paradigm in corporate governance is additionally apparent on a practical policy-making level today, not least in the rapid proliferation of Benefit Corporations as a viable and popular alternative legal form to the orthodox for-profit corporation. At the same time, the increasing use by US-listed firms of dual-class voting structures designed to insulate management from outside capital market pressures, coupled with the seemingly greater flexibility afforded to boards over recent years in defending against unwanted takeover bids from so-called corporate “raiders,” both provide additional cause to question the longevity of the shareholder-oriented corporate governance status quo.
But while evolving PSV institutional mechanisms such as Benefit Corporations and dual-class share structures are prima facie encouraging from a social perspective, there is cause for scepticism about their capacity to become anything more than a relatively niche or peripheral feature of the US public corporations landscape. This is principally because such measures, in spite of their apparent reformist potential, are still ultimately quasi-contractual and thus essentially voluntary in nature, meaning that they are unlikely to be adopted in a public corporations context except in extraordinary instances. From a normative point of view, moreover, it is arguable that such measures—irrespective of the extent of their take-up over the coming years—ultimately should remain quasi-contractual and voluntary in nature, as opposed to being placed on any sort of mandatory basis.
In this regard, it should be respected that public corporations are not only the predominant organizational vehicle for conducting large-scale industrial production projects over indefinite time horizons, as academic proponents of the PSV position have vigorously emphasized. Of comparable importance and ingenuity is that fact that—in the United States at least—public corporations are also a necessary structural means of enabling the residual income streams accruing from successful industrial projects to fund the provision of socially essential financial services, via the medium of public capital (and especially equity) markets. Unfortunately, though, these two dimensions of the public corporation are not always mutually compatible. Rather, it would seem that more often than not they are prone to antagonize, rather than complement, one another. This is especially so when it comes to the periodically-vexing managerial question of whether a firm’s residual earnings should be committed internally to the sustenance and development of the productive corporate enterprise itself, or else distributed externally to shareholders in the form of either enhanced dividends or stock buybacks. The problem is that the evolving PSV corporate governance paradigm—as manifested on both an intellectual and policy level today—focuses exclusively on the former of those dimensions at the expense of the latter.
The somewhat uncomfortable truth for many observers is that, for better or worse, the American system of shareholder capitalism, and its pivotal corporate governance principle of shareholder primacy, are ultimately products of our own collective (albeit unintentional) civic design. Accordingly, while in many respects the orthodox shareholder-oriented corporate governance framework may be a social evil; it is nonetheless a necessary evil, which US worker-savers implicitly tolerate as the effective social price for sustaining a system of non-occupational income provision outside of direct state control. Until corporate governance scholars and policymakers are capable of coordinating their respective energies towards somehow alleviating US worker-savers’ significant dependence on corporate equity as a source of non-occupational wealth gains, the shareholder-oriented corporation is likely to remain a socially indispensable phenomenon. To those who rue this prospect, it might be retorted “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.”
The complete paper is available for download here.
Marc Moore* is Reader in Corporate Law and Director of the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law (3CL) at the University of Cambridge. This post is based on a recent paper by Dr. Moore. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Case for Increasing Shareholder Power by Lucian Bebchuk.
Je crois que cet article intéressera tous les administrateurs siégeant à des conseils d’administration. Personnellement, je suis très heureux de constater que la démarche ait consisté en des rencontres avec des groupes d’administrateurs chevronnés.
Plusieurs messages très pertinents ressortent des rencontres. Ils sont regroupés selon les catégories suivantes :
La taille du conseil
La composition du conseil
La présidence du conseil
L’évaluation du conseil
Information et prise de décision
Les comités du conseil
Je vous invite à lire l’ensemble du document sur le site de l’IGOPP. Voici un extrait de cet article.
« Une longue expérience comme administrateur de sociétés mène souvent au constat que la qualité de la gouvernance et l’efficacité d’un conseil tiennent à des facteurs subtils, difficilement quantifiables, mais tout aussi importants, voire plus importants, que les aspects fiduciaires et formels.
Cette dimension informelle de la gouvernance prend forme et substance dans les échanges, les interactions sociales, l’encadrement des discussions, le style de leadership du président du conseil, dans tout ce qui se passe avant et après les réunions formelles ainsi qu’autour de la table au moment des réunions du conseil et de ses comités.
Cela est vrai pour tout type de sociétés, que ce soient une entreprise cotée en bourse, un organisme public, une société d’État, une coopérative ou un organisme sans but lucratif.
L’IGOPP estime que pour relever encore l’efficacité des conseils d’administration il est important de bien comprendre ce qui peut contribuer à une dynamique productive entre les membres d’un conseil.
Pourtant, alors que les études sur tous les aspects de la gouvernance foisonnent, cet aspect fait l’objet de peu de recherches empiriques, et ce pour une raison bien simple. Les conseils d’administration ne peuvent donner à des chercheurs un accès direct à leurs réunions ni à leur documentation en raison des contraintes de confidentialité.
Le professeur Richard Leblanc, grâce au réseau de son directeur de thèse de doctorat et co-auteur James Gillies, a pu, rare exception, observer un certain nombre de conseils d’administration en action. Ils ont publié en 2005 un ouvrage Inside the Boardroom, lequel propose une intéressante typologie des comportements dominants des membres de conseil au cours de réunions.
Depuis aucune autre étude empirique n’a été menée sur le sujet. D’ailleurs, l’ouvrage de Leblanc et Gillies, se limitant aux comportements observables lors de réunions formelles, ne nous éclairait que sur une partie du phénomène »
…
« L’IGOPP a voulu mieux comprendre cette dynamique et, si possible, proposer aux administrateurs et présidents de conseil des suggestions pouvant améliorer la qualité de la gouvernance.
L’IGOPP a donc invité des membres de conseil expérimentés et férus de gouvernance pour un échange sur cet enjeu. Les 14 personnes suivantes ont accepté promptement notre invitation et nous les en remercions chaleureusement:
Jacynthe Côté
Gérard Coulombe
Isabelle Courville
Paule Doré
Jean La Couture
Sylvie Lalande
John LeBoutillier
Brian Levitt
David L. McAusland
Marie-José Nadeau
Réal Raymond
Louise Roy
Guylaine Saucier
Jean-Marie Toulouse, qui a agi comme modérateur des discussions.
Collectivement, nos interlocuteurs siègent au sein de 75 conseils, dont 34 sont des sociétés ouvertes parmi lesquelles 14 ont leur siège hors Québec.
Nous avons tenu quatre sessions, chacune comptant un petit nombre d’administrateurs, de façon à ce que les discussions permettent à tous de s’exprimer pleinement.
Ces sessions furent riches en commentaires, observations pertinentes et suggestions utiles ».
Plusieurs messages très pertinents ressortent des rencontres. Ils sont regroupés selon les catégories suivantes :
La taille du conseil
La composition du conseil
La présidence du conseil
L’évaluation du conseil
Information et prise de décision
Les comités du conseil
En conclusion, l’auteur mentionne que « ce texte tente de rendre justice aux échanges entre les 14 administrateurs chevronnés qui ont participé à cette recherche de pistes d’amélioration de la dynamique des conseils d’administration et donc de la gouvernance de nos sociétés ».
Au lendemain du référendum mené en Grande-Bretagne (GB), on peut se demander quelles sont les implications juridiques d’une telle décision. Celles-ci sont nombreuses ; plusieurs scénarios peuvent être envisagés pour prévoir l’avenir des relations entre la GB et l’Union européenne (UE).
Ben Perry* de la firme Sullivan & Cromwell a exploré toutes les facettes légales de cette nouvelle situation dans un article paru hier sur le site du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.
C’est un article très poussé sur les répercussions du Brexit. On doit admettre que le processus de retrait de l’UE est complexe, qu’il y a plusieurs modèles dont la GB peut s’inspirer (Suisse, Norvégien, Islandais, Liechtenstein), et que le vote n’a pas d’effets légaux immédiats. En fait, le processus de sortie et de renégociation peut durer trois ans !
Je vous invite à lire ce très intéressant article afin d’être mieux informés sur les principales avenues conséquentes au retrait de la GB de l’UE.
In a referendum held in the UK on June 23, 2016, a majority of those voting voted for the UK to leave the EU. This post briefly summarizes some of the main legal implications of the “leave” vote and is primarily for the benefit of those outside the UK who have not followed the referendum campaign in detail.
The “leave” vote has no immediate legal effect under either UK or EU law
The UK currently remains a member of the EU and there will not be any immediate change in either EU or UK law as a consequence of the “leave” vote. EU law does not govern contracts and the UK is not part of the EU’s monetary union.
However, the “leave” vote now heralds the beginning of a lengthy process under which (i) the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from, and future relationship with, the EU are negotiated and (ii) legislation to implement the UK’s withdrawal from the EU is enacted (primarily in the UK, but also at the EU level and in other EU member states to the extent necessary).
The terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU will need to be negotiated
The ultimate legal impact of the “leave” vote will depend on the terms that are negotiated in relation to the UK’s future relationship with the EU, as described below. This is currently the principal source of uncertainty as to the legal implications of the “leave” vote. Each of the UK government and the EU will need to formulate their respective positions for the withdrawal negotiations over the coming months. Once this is done, the likely direction for the UK’s future relationship with the EU will become clearer, allowing for a sharper focus on the legal implications.
It is not yet clear what terms the UK will seek to negotiate with the EU (or what the EU will offer to the UK) in relation to its withdrawal from, and future relationship with, the EU. To date, there has been no consensus, even among “leave” campaigners, as to the terms which the UK should seek in these negotiations. The key factor is the extent to which the UK wishes to continue to benefit from any part of the EU single market (i.e., the current EU regime which allows for free movement of goods, services, capital and persons, and freedom of establishment, within the EU).
There are several different existing models that could be adopted, either alone or in combination with one another. These include the following:
Total exit: the UK leaves the EU and does not continue to benefit from any part of the single market. The UK either relies solely on the rules of the World Trade Organization (which include rules governing the imposition of tariffs on goods and services) as the basis for trading with the EU or negotiates a new bilateral trade deal with the EU.
The Norwegian model: the UK leaves the EU but joins the European Economic Area (EEA). The EEA is constituted by the EEA Agreement among the 28 EU member states and three countries which are not EU member states (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), and extends the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons beyond the EU to those three countries. Under this arrangement, EU law relating to these four freedoms (which could be modified by the EU without the UK’s consent) would largely continue to apply to the UK, and the UK would continue to have full access to the single market.
The Swiss model: the UK leaves the EU and does not join the EEA as described above. It may instead rejoin EFTA (an intergovernmental organization comprised of European countries who are not members of the EU—the UK was a member of EFTA before it joined the EU in 1973). Currently, only Switzerland is a member of EFTA but not a member of the EEA. Switzerland has (on its own behalf rather than as a member of EFTA) negotiated a large number of sector-specific bilateral agreements with the EU and has access to some parts of the single market, but is excluded from the single market in some major sectors (for example, Switzerland is not part of the single market in the financial services sector).
Although the EU treaty provides a framework for a member state to withdraw from the EU, this particular framework has never been used before and it is therefore not certain how it will operate in practice
The EU treaty provides (in article 50) a mechanism whereby a member state can withdraw from the EU and notify the European Council of its intention to do so. The giving of such a notice triggers the start of a two year time period for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement between that member state and the EU. The withdrawal agreement is required to be approved by (i) the 27 EU member states excluding the withdrawing member state (by qualified majority rather than unanimously) and (ii) the European Parliament (by simple majority).
No announcement has yet been made by the UK government as to when it intends to deliver any notice of withdrawal under article 50.
The withdrawal of the UK from the EU would take effect either on the effective date of the withdrawal agreement or, in the absence of agreement, two years after the article 50 notice referred to above, unless the UK and all the other EU member states agreed to extend this date.
Although the timescale is not at all clear at this stage, it appears likely that the withdrawal of the UK from the EU (both the conclusion of a withdrawal agreement and the arrangements for the UK’s future relationship with the EU) will take more than two years to negotiate and conclude. Even the withdrawal of Greenland (an autonomous country within the state of Denmark) from the EU, where the issues were far more limited, took three years from the relevant referendum vote to come into effect.
The UK will need to decide the extent to which existing EU law should continue to apply in the UK
Since 1973, the UK has implemented a vast number of EU directives into UK law. These will remain effective as UK law unless they are amended or repealed. This means that, in a total exit, or if the Swiss model were to be adopted, there will of necessity be a massive exercise, spanning several years, in which the UK government will need to determine which aspects of these EU directives it wishes to either (i) retain, (ii) amend or (iii) repeal.
In addition, the UK would need to enact new laws to the extent it wished to retain:
any EU laws which had been enacted by means of EU regulations, which are currently directly applicable in the UK without any implementing measures; or
any other EU laws which had direct effect in the UK without any implementing measures (e.g., provisions of the EU treaty, or EU directives which had not been implemented in the UK within the required timeframe but which were sufficiently clear and precise, unconditional and did not give member states substantial discretion in their application).
This is because those EU laws would, absent any such further UK laws being enacted, automatically cease to have effect in the UK on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU becoming effective.
The current relationship between EU law and UK law is principally governed by a UK statute (the European Communities Act 1972) which, among other things:
provides for the direct application of EU regulations and the direct effect of those EU laws which are stated to have direct effect;
gives the UK government power to introduce delegated legislation to implement EU law generally; and
provides for the supremacy of EU law over UK law.
However, repealing the European Communities Act on its own would not avoid the need for the extensive review of existing UK laws implementing EU directives as described above. There have been some suggestions by “leave” campaigners prior to the referendum that the UK government should seek to repeal the European Communities Act prior to an agreement having been reached on the withdrawal arrangements and future relationship of the UK with the EU, although this would be a politically charged move.
If the Norwegian model were adopted, however, EU law relating to the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons would be likely to continue to largely apply in the UK.
If the UK were not a full participant in the single market, the ability of EU nationals to work in the UK, or the ability of UK nationals to work in the EU, would likely be affected
In a total exit, EU nationals would lose the automatic right to work in the UK, and UK nationals would lose the automatic right to work in the EU, subject to transitional arrangements which would presumably need to be put in place for an interim period. New immigration rules would therefore need to be implemented (i) in the UK in relation to EU nationals and (ii) in the other EU member states in relation to UK nationals.
If the Norwegian model were adopted, as part of having full access to the single market, the UK would likely continue to be bound by the EU treaty principle of free movement of persons, which would continue to enable EU nationals to work in the UK without requiring authorization.
If the Swiss model were adopted, the UK would need to enter into an agreement with the EU setting out the extent to which EU nationals would have the right to work in the UK, and UK nationals would have the right to work in the EU.
There are two related areas which, as they are matters of UK national sovereignty, would not be affected in the same way as the right of non-EU nationals to work in the UK.
First, the current visa requirements for non-EU nationals to work in the UK would remain in place, although additional restrictions on immigration from outside the EU could be imposed by the UK government in any event, and to the extent that nationals of any country had the right to work in the UK as a result of a bilateral agreement between that country and the EU (e.g., Switzerland) that right would cease to apply and new arrangements would need to be negotiated between the UK and that country.
Second, the UK’s current tax regime for individuals who are resident but not domiciled in the UK is not a creation of EU law and would not fall away as a consequence of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
One of the areas of law potentially most affected will likely be the regulation of financial services
Those areas which will be potentially most affected will be those where the EU has embarked on its most significant harmonization efforts in recent years, in particular the regulation of financial services.
Unless the Norwegian model were adopted, the UK government would need to decide whether to retain, amend or repeal a number of significant pieces of EU financial services legislation, notwithstanding that many of these are Basel-based. These include, among others, the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) IV and other aspects of the bank supervisory regime, the Markets in Financial Instruments (MiFID) II and other aspects of the investment firms’ supervisory regime, the Solvency II Directive and other aspects of the insurance supervisory regime, the Alternative Investment Fund Managers’ Directive (AIFMD) and other aspects of the alternative investment management supervisory regime, the cap on bankers’ bonuses, the Prospectus Directive and the Transparency Directive and other aspects of the capital markets regime, and the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) and other aspects of the derivatives regime.
In addition, unless the Norwegian model were adopted or the application of the Norwegian model had been specifically negotiated for a transitional period as part of the withdrawal arrangements, there would be no right for UK-authorized firms or individuals to provide financial services in the EU on a “passported” basis. Any non-EU financial institution currently using a UK-authorized person to provide financial services elsewhere in the EU would need to obtain authorization from an EU member state by either establishing an authorized branch in an EU member state or obtaining authorization for one of its subsidiaries in an EU member state. The impact of any loss of “passporting” rights would be more serious for some financial institutions than for others.
It is very difficult to predict the overall impact on the UK financial services sector as a whole because, irrespective of whether the UK remains part of the single market for financial services, there are other factors which have historically helped the development of the financial services sector in the UK (such as the availability of talent, support services and other infrastructure and the use of English as the global language for financial services) which will continue to be present.
Other areas of law which would potentially be affected include, among others: M&A and corporate law; capital markets; competition law; and tax. In each of these areas, the extent of the impact will depend on the model which is adopted for the UK’s future relationship with the EU.
There is potential for contractual disputes to arise
While it is not possible to anticipate all of the events which may arise as a consequence of the “leave” vote, there may, in some cases, be circumstances which arise which cause parties to claim that provisions either excusing the performance of contractual obligations, or triggering a right to terminate contracts, are capable of being invoked. Any such issues will require careful consideration in light of the relevant contracts as a whole and the possibility that circumstances may continue to change rapidly.
______________________________
*Ben Perry is a partner in the London office of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. This post is based on a Sullivan & Cromwell publication.
Aujourd’hui, je vous propose la lecture d’un article paru dans la revue European Journal of Risk Regulation (EJRR) qui scrute le scandale de Volkswagensous l’angle juridique, mais, surtout, sous l’angle des manquements à la saine gouvernance.
Le texte se présente comme un cas en gouvernance et en management. Celui-ci devrait alimenter les réflexions sur l’éthique, les valeurs culturelles et les effets des pressions excessives à la performance.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, l’intégralité de l’article avec le consentement de l’auteure. Je n’ai pas inclus les références, qui sont très abondantes et qui peuvent être consultées sur le site de la maison d’édition lexxion.
Like some other crises and scandals that periodically occur in the business community, the Volkswagen (“VW”) scandal once again highlights the devastating consequences of corporate misconduct, once publicly disclosed, and the media storm that generally follows the discovery of such significant misbehaviour by a major corporation. Since the crisis broke in September 2015, the media have relayed endless détails about the substantial negative impacts on VW on various stakeholder groups such as employees, directors, investors, suppliers and consumers, and on the automobile industry as a whole (1)
The multiple and negative repercussions at the economic, organizational and legal levels have quickly become apparent, in particular in the form of resignations, changes in VW’s senior management, layoffs, a hiring freeze, the end to the marketing of diesel-engined vehicles, vehicle recalls, a decline in car sales, a drop in market capitalization, and the launching of internal investigations by VW and external investigations by the public authorities. This comes in addition to the threat of numerous civil, administrative, penal and criminal lawsuits and the substantial penalties they entail, as well as the erosion of trust in VW and the automobile industry generally (2).
FILE PHOTO: Martin Winterkorn, chief executive officer of Volkswagen AG, reacts during an earnings news conference at the company’s headquarters in Wolfsburg, Germany, on Monday, March 12, 2012. Volkswagen said 11 million vehicles were equipped with diesel engines at the center of a widening scandal over faked pollution controls that will cost the company at least 6.5 billion euros ($7.3 billion). Photographer: Michele Tantussi/Bloomberg *** Local Caption *** Martin Winterkorn
A scandal of this extent cannot fail to raise a number of questions, in particular concerning the cause of the alleged cheating, liable actors, the potential organizational and regulatory problems related to compliance, and ways to prevent further misconduct at VW and within the automobile industry. Based on the information surrounding the VW scandal, it is premature to capture all facets of the case. In order to analyze inmore depth the various problems raised, we will have to wait for the findings of the investigations conducted both internally by the VW Group and externally by the regulatory authorities.
While recognizing the incompleteness of the information made available to date by VW and certain commentators, we can still use this documentation to highlight a few features of the case that deserve to be studied from the standpoint of corporate governance.
This Article remains relatively modest in scope, and is designed to highlight certain organizational factors that may explain the deviant behaviour observed at VW. More specifically, it submits that the main cause of VW’s alleged wrongdoing lies in the company’s ambitious production targets for the U.S. market and the time and budget constraints imposed on employees to reach those targets. Arguably, the corporate strategy and pressures exerted on VW’s employees may have led them to give preference to the performance priorities set by the company rather than compliance with the applicable legal and ethical standards. And this corporate misconduct could not be detected because of deficiencies in the monitoring and control mechanisms, and especially in the compliance system established by the company to ensure that legal requirements were respected.
Although limited in scope, this inquiry may prove useful in identifying means to minimize, in the future, the risk of similar misconduct, not only at VW but wihin other companies as well (3). Given the limited objectives of the Article, which focuses on certain specific organizational deficiencies at VW, the legal questions raised by the case will not be addressed. However, the Article will refer to one aspect of the law of business corporations in the United States, Canada and in the EU Member States in order to emphasize the crucial role that boards in publicly-held companies must exercise to minimize the risk of misconduct (4).
II. A Preliminary Admission by VW: Individual Misconduct by a few Software Engineers
When a scandal erupts in the business community following a case of fraud, embezzlement, corruption, the marketing of dangerous products or other deviant behaviour, the company concerned and the regulatory authorities are required to quickly identify the individuals responsible for the alleged misbehaviour. For example, in the Enron, WorldCom, Tyco and Adelphia scandals of the early 2000s, the investigations revealed that certain company senior managers had acted fraudulently by orchestrating accounting manipulations to camouflage their business’s dire financial situation (5).
These revelations led to the prosecution and conviction of the officers responsible for the corporations’ misconduct (6). In the United States, the importanace of identifying individual wrongdoers is clearly stated in the Principles of Federal Prosecutions of Business Organizations issued by the U.S. Department of Justice which provide guidelines for prosecutions of corporate misbehaviour (7). On the basis of a memo issued in 2015 by the Department of Justice (the “Yatesmemo”) (8), these principles were recently revised to express a renewed commitment to investigate and prosecute individuals responsible for corporate wrongdoing.While recognizing the importance of individual prosecutions in that context, the strategy is only one of the ways to respond to white-collar crime. From a prevention standpoint, it is essential to conduct a broader examination of the organizational environment in which senior managers and employees work to determine if the enterprise’s culture, values, policies, monitoring mechanisms and practices contribute or have contributed to the adoption of deviant behaviour (9).
In the Volkswagen case, the company’s management concentrated first on identifying the handful of individuals it considered to be responsible for the deception, before admitting few weeks later that organizational problems had also encouraged or facilitated the unlawful corporate behaviour. Once news broke of the Volkswagen scandal, one of VW’s officers quickly linked the wrongdoing to the actions of a few employees, but without uncovering any governance problems or misbehaviour at the VW management level (10).
In October 2015, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the VW Group in the United States, Michael Horn, stated in testimony before a Congressional Subcommittee: “[t]his was a couple of software engineers who put this for whatever reason » […]. To my understanding, this was not a corporate decision. This was something individuals did » (11). In other words, the US CEO considered that sole responsibility for the scandal lay with a handful of engineers working at the company, while rejecting any allegation tending to incriminate the company’s management.
This portion of his testimony failed to convince the members of the Subcommittee, who expressed serious doubts about placing sole blame on the misbehaviour of a few engineers, given that the problem had existed since 2009. As expressed in a sceptical response from one of the committee’s members: « I cannot accept VW’s portrayal of this as something by a couple of rogue software engineers […] Suspending three folks – it goes way, way higher than that » (12).
Although misconduct similar to the behaviour uncovered at Volkswagen can often be explained by the reprehensible actions of a few individuals described as « bad apples », the violation of rules can also be explained by the existence of organizational problems within a company (13).
III. Recognition of Organizational Failures by VW
In terms of corporate governance, an analysis of misbehaviour can highlight problems connected with the culture, values, policies and strategies promoted by a company’s management that have a negative influence on the behaviour of senior managers and employees. Considering the importance of the organizational environment in which these players act, regulators provide for several internal and external governance mechanisms to reduce the risk of corporate misbehaviour or to minimize agency problems (14). As one example of an internal governance mechanism, the law of business corporations in the U.S., Canada and the EU Member States gives the board of directors (in a one-tier board structure, as prescribed Under American and Canadian corporation law) and the management board and supervisory board (in a two tier board structure, as provided for in some EU Member States, such as Germany) a key role to play in monitoring the company’s activities and internal dealings (15). As part of their monitoring mission, the board must ensure that the company and its agents act in a diligent and honest way and in compliance with the regulations, in particular by establishing mechanisms or policies in connection with risk management, internal controls, information disclosure, due diligence investigation and compliance (16).
When analysing the Volkswagen scandal from the viewpoint of its corporate governance, the question to be asked is whether the culture, values, priorities, strategies and monitoring and control mechanisms established by the company’s management board and supervisory board – in other words « the tone at the top »-, created an environment that contributed to the emergence of misbehaviour (17).
In this saga, although the initial testimony given to the Congressional Subcommittee by the company’s U.S. CEO, Michael Horn, assigned sole responsibility to a small circle of individuals, « VW’s senior management later recognized that the misconduct could not be explained simply by the deviant behaviour of a few people, since the evidence also pointed to organizational problems supporting the violation of regulations (18). In December 2015, VW’s management released the following observations, drawn from the preliminary results of its internal investigation:
« Group Audit’s examination of the relevant processes indicates that the software-influenced NOx emissions behavior was due to the interaction of three factors:
– The misconduct and shortcomings of individual employees
– Weaknesses in some processes
– A mindset in some areas of the Company that tolerated breaches of rules » (19).
Concerning the question of process,VW released the following audit key findings:
« Procedural problems in the relevant subdivisions have encouraged misconduct;
Faults in reporting and monitoring systems as well as failure to comply with existing regulations;
IT infrastructure partially insufficient and antiquated. » (20)
More fundamentally, VW’s management pointed out at the same time that the information obtained up to that point on “the origin and development of the nitrogen issue […] proves not to have been a one-time error, but rather a chain of errors that were allowed to happen (21). The starting point was a strategic decision to launch a large-scale promotion of diesel vehicles in the United States in 2005. Initially, it proved impossible to have the EA 189 engine meet by legal means the stricter nitrogen oxide requirements in the United States within the required timeframe and budget » (22).
In other words, this revelation by VW’s management suggests that « the end justified the means » in the sense that the ambitious production targets for the U.S. market and the time and budget constraints imposed on employees encouraged those employees to use illegal methods in operational terms to achieve the company’s objective. And this misconduct could not be detected because of deficiencies in the monitoring and control mechanisms, and especially in the compliance system established by the company to ensure that legal requirements were respected. Among the reasons given to explain the crisis, some observers also pointed to the excessive centralization of decision-making powers within VW’s senior management, and an organizational culture that acted as a brake on internal communications and discouraged mid-level managers from passing on bad news (23).
IV. Organizational Changes Considered as a Preliminary Step
In response to the crisis, VW’s management, in a press release in December 2015, set out the main organizational changes planned to minimize the risk of similar misconduct in the future. The changes mainly involved « instituting a comprehensive new alignment that affects the structure of the Group, as well as is way of thinking and its strategic goals (24).
In structural terms, VW changed the composition of the Group’s Board of Management to include the person responsible for the Integrity and Legal Affairs Department as a board member (25). In the future, the company wanted to give « more importance to digitalization, which will report directly to the Chairman of the Board of Management, » and intended to give « more independence to brand and divisions through a more decentralized management (26). With a view to initiating a new mindset, VW’s management stated that it wanted to avoid « yes-men » and to encourage managers and engineers « who are curious, independent, and pioneering » (27). However, the December 2015 press release reveals little about VW’s strategic objectives: « Strategy 2025, with which Volkswagen will address the main issues for the future, is scheduled to be presented in mid 2016 » (28).
Although VW’s management has not yet provided any details on the specific objectives targeted in its « Strategy 2025 », it is revealing to read the VW annual reports from before 2015 in which the company sets out clear and ambitious objectives for productivity and profitability. For example, the annual reports for 2007, 2009 and 2014 contained the following financial objectives, which the company hoped to reach by 2018.
In its 2007 annual report,VW specified, under the heading « Driving ideas »:
“Financial targets are equally ambitious: for example, the Volkswagen Passenger Cars brand aims to increase its unit sales by over 80 percent to 6.6 million vehicles by 2018, thereby reaching a global market share of approximately 9 percent. To make it one of the most profitable automobile companies as well, it is aiming for an ROI of 21 percent and a return on sales before tax of 9 percent.” (29).
Under the same heading, VW stated in its 2009 annual report:
“In 2018, the Volkswagen Group aims to be the most successful and fascinating automaker in the world. […] Over the long term, Volkswagen aims to increase unit sales to more than 10 million vehicles a year: it intends to capture an above-average share as the major growth markets develop (30).
And in its 2014 annual report, under the heading « Goals and Strategies », VW said:
“The goal is to generate unit sales of more than 10 million vehicles a year; in particular, Volkswagen intends to capture an above-average share of growth in the major growth markets.”
Volkswagen’s aim is a long-term return on sales before tax of at least 8% so as to ensure that the Group’s solid financial position and ability to act are guaranteed even in difficult market periods (31).
Besides these specific objectives for financial performance, the annual reports show that the company’s management recognized, at least on paper, the importance of ensuring regulatory compliance and promoting corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability (31). However, after the scandal broke in September 2015, questions can be asked about the effectiveness of the governance mechanisms, especially of the reporting and monitoring systems put in place by VW to achieve company goals in this area (33). In light of the preliminary results of VW’s internal investigation (34), as mentionned above, it seems that, in the organizational culture, the commitment to promote compliance, CSR and sustainability was not as strong as the effort made to achieve the company’s financial performance objectives.
Concerning the specific and challenging priorities of productivity and profitability established by VW’s management in previous years, the question is whether the promotion of financial objectives such as these created a risk because of the pressure it placed on employees within the organizational environment. The priorities can, of course, exert a positive influence and motivate employees to make an even greater effort to achieve the objectives (35). On the other hand, the same priority can exert a negative influence by potentially encouraging employees to use all means necessary to achieve the performance objectives set, in order to protect their job or obtain a promotion, even if the means they use for that purpose contravene the regulations. In other words, the employees face a « double bind » or dilemma which, depending on the circumstances, can lead them to give preference to the performance priorities set by the company rather than compliance with the applicable legal and ethical standards.
In the management literature, a large number of theoretical and empirical studies emphasize the beneficial effects of the setting of specific and challenging goals on employee motivation and performance within a company (36). However, while recognizing these beneficial effects, some authors point out the unwanted or negative side effects they may have.
As highlighted by Ordóñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky and Bazerman, specific goal setting can result in employees focusing solely on those goals while neglecting other important, but unstated, objectives (37). They also mention that employees motivated by « specific, challenging goals adopt riskier strategies and choose riskier gambles than do those with less challenging or vague goals (38). As an additional unwanted side effet, goal setting can encourage unlawful or unethical behaviour, either by inciting employees to use dishonest methods to meet the performance objectives targeted, or to “misrepresent their performance level – in other words, to report that they met a goal when in fact they fell short (39). Based on these observations, the authors suggest that companies should set their objectives with the greatest care and propose various ways to guard against the unwanted side effects highlighted in their study. This approach could prove useful for VW’s management which will once again, at some point, have to define its objectives and stratégies.
V. Conclusion
In the information released to the public after the emissions cheating scandal broke, as mentioned above, VW’s management quickly stated that the misconduct was directly caused by the individual misbehaviour of a couple of software engineers. Later, however, it admitted that the individual misconduct of a few employees was not the only cause, and that there were also organizational deficiencies within the company itself.
Although the VW Group’s public communications have so far provided few details about the cause of the crisis, the admission by management that both individual and organizational failings were involved constitutes, in our opinion, a lever for understanding the various factors that may have led to reprehensible conduct within the company. Based on the investigations that will be completed over the coming months, VW’s management will be in a position to identify more precisely the nature of these organizational failings and to propose ways to minimize the risk of future violations. During 2016, VW’s management will also announce the objectives and stratégies it intends to pursue over the next few years.
Un actionnaire activiste (Hedge Funds) qui veut faire élire un de ses partisans à un conseil d’administration ciblé peut-il le rémunérer afin qu’il puisse faire campagne pour son élection à un poste d’administrateur ?
Quelle est la loi à cet égard ? Quelles sont les recommandations de la firme ISS dans ces cas ?
La laisse dorée (« golden leash »), comme on appelle ce lien avec le promoteur de la campagne électorale, est-elle congruente avec le droit des actionnaires ? Ou, cette pratique est-elle sujette à d’éventuels conflits d’intérêts au détriment des actionnaires ?
Il semble bien que cette pratique soit de plus en plus répandue et qu’elle soit « légale », bien que la SEC n’ait pas dit son dernier mot à ce stade-ci. La pratique est appuyée par les grandes firmes de conseil en votation (ISS et Glass Lewis).
L’article publié par Andrew A. Schwartz*, professeur à l’École de droit de l’Université du Colorado, est paru aujourd’hui sur le forum de la HBL School on Corporate Governance. On y présente différentes problématiques, telles que la volonté des CA de bloquer l’élection d’administrateurs externes et la volonté des fonds activistes de remplacer certains administrateurs par des candidats favorables aux changements stratégiques souhaités.
Je crois que vous serez intéressés par une meilleure compréhension de ces pratiques, de plus en plus fréquentes, tolérées et non réglementées.
Qu’en pensez-vous ? Vos opinions sont les bienvenues et elles sont appréciées de nos lecteurs.
There is a battle in progress between activist hedge funds and public companies over so-called “golden leash” payments. This is where an activist shareholder running a proxy contest promises to pay her slate of director-candidates a supplemental compensation, over and above the ordinary director fees paid by the company to all directors. The purpose of the golden leash, according to the hedge funds that invented it, is to help activists recruit highly qualified people to challenge incumbent board members and, once on the board, to push for business decisions that will benefit all shareholders. Because the golden leash serves to enhance corporate democracy by helping activists mount effective proxy contests to challenge the incumbent board, the advisory services ISS and Glass Lewis have voiced support for the practice, as have some othercommentators.
Many others, however, have expressed concern that the golden leash, by placing a director ‘on the payroll’ of a third party, creates an obvious incentive for her to favor the interests of her sponsor, even at the expense of the corporation or the shareholders as a whole. Thus Columbia Professor John Coffee has analogized the golden leash to a bribe, and UCLA Professor Stephen Bainbridge has called it illegal nonsense. On the suggestion of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz, dozens of public companies adopted bylaws that prohibited golden leash payments on their boards. Although most of those bylaws were later retracted in the face of ISS opposition, the battle still rages.
So, should we ban the golden leash—or should we laud it? Both sides of the debate make strong arguments, but I think that neither has focused sufficient analytical attention on the nature of the golden leash itself. Before deciding whether to criticize or defend the golden leash, it is surely vital to understand it first, and I undertake that analysis in my latest article, Financing Corporate Elections. In my view, the golden leash is not, or not only, a payment for service performed as a director. Rather, the golden leash can best be understood as a form of campaign contribution paid by the activist sponsor to a director-candidate in a contested proxy contest. At its most basic, the golden leash is a payment of contingent consideration from an activist to a director-candidate in order to encourage the latter to launch a campaign for office; and the same activist is also willing to bear the costs of running the campaign. This fits well into the conceptual framework of third-party campaign finance, where one party pays the expenses of the political campaign of another.
Accepting the golden leash as a campaign contribution, what are the rules or limits on corporate campaign finance? Are there legal limits on who may contribute to a director-candidate or her campaign, or how much they may contribute? May an incumbent board impose such limits by amending its bylaws? What about disclosure? These are all new questions for corporate elections, and there is no case law on point. Yet analogous questions regarding political campaign finance have been analyzed and resolved for decades under the First Amendment and a line of doctrine derived from the landmark Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976. The so-called “Buckley framework” is premised in part on a concern that incumbent officeholders may impose such tight limits on campaign finance that they neutralize their political competitors and entrench the incumbents in office. In order to protect our republican form of democracy, Buckley thus imposes strict scrutiny, meaning the government must prove that its campaign finance law or regulation furthers a “compelling interest” and is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest.
I contend in Financing Corporate Elections that the underlying logic of the Buckley framework is transferrable to the corporate context via the famous Blasius doctrine of Delaware law. [1] Incumbent directors, just like incumbent politicians, have an interest in perpetuating themselves in office, and it is easy to imagine that an incumbent board might impose limits on financing corporate elections that have the effect of hindering insurgent campaigns (and thus entrenching the incumbents). I therefore argue that Blasius should be understood to call for a Buckley-like analysis of corporate campaign finance regulation. My proposed “Blasius-Buckley framework” would ask courts to strictly scrutinize board-imposed campaign finance regulations to determine whether they advance a compelling corporate interest in a narrowly tailored fashion.
How would this insight apply to the golden leash and efforts to limit or ban it? Since the golden leash is a form of campaign contribution, then a board-imposed bylaw that regulates it is just the type of campaign finance regulation that should, in my view, be analyzed using the Blasius-Buckley framework. The first issue under Blasius-Buckley is whether there is a compelling corporate interest in regulating the golden leash, and here the answer is almost certain to be yes. The golden leash poses a direct threat to the foundational corporate interest in having a board of directors whose loyalty unquestionably lies with the corporation and its shareholders. When one party makes large payments directly to a director-candidate, as in the golden leash, this clearly raises the specter that the candidate will follow the sponsor’s commands or advance its interests, even if doing so may not be in the best long-term interest of the corporation or its shareholders as a whole. A corporation surely has a compelling interest in preventing this sort of subversion.
The second prong of the Blasius-Buckley framework goes to narrow tailoring, and this part of the analysis would depend on the precise nature of the limits placed by the incumbent directors. An incumbent board that places too-strict limits on the golden leash may thereby hamstring their rivals and effectively entrench themselves in office, which would offend the core value of shareholder sovereignty. Hence, a bylaw that were to ban the golden leash entirely, as the model bylaw proposed by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz appears to do, would probably not pass muster under the narrow-tailoring prong of Blasius-Buckley. But less-draconian bylaws that merely seek to regulate the golden leash would probably survive. Disclosure requirements, reasonable limits on the size and form of golden leash payments, and restrictions on the source of such payments, would likely all qualify as narrowly tailored.
Quelles actions les conseils d’administration sont-ils susceptibles d’adopter dans les cas où leur PDG (CEO) a un comportement « limite » tout en n’étant pas illégal ?
L’article récemment publié par David Larcker* et Brian Tayan** dans la Harvard Business Review présente plusieurs exemples de situations où les CEO captent l’attention du public pour de mauvaises raisons !
Les CA sont les garants de la réputation de l’entreprise et, lorsque confrontés à des comportements fautifs de la part de leur CEO, ils doivent s’assurer de prendre toutes les mesures appropriées.
Les auteurs ont identifié 38 cas de comportements de CEO déviants qui ont un des échos révélateurs et qui ont généré des actions de gestion de crises. L’échantillon des cas retenus a été présenté en cinq grandes catégories :
(1) 34 % des cas impliquent des CEO qui ont menti à propos de leurs affaires personnelles ;
(2) 21 % des cas sont de nature sexuelle, impliquant un subordonné, un entrepreneur ou un consultant ;
(3) 16 % des cas concernent l’utilisation « questionnable » des fonds de l’entreprise ;
(4) 16 % des cas consistent en comportements grossiers ou abusifs ;
(5) 13 % des cas consistent en déclarations publiques qui ont des conséquences négatives sur les clients ou sur un groupe social en particulier.
Les résultats suivants ressortent clairement de l’étude :
– The impact of misbehavior on corporate reputation is significant and long-lasting.
– Shareholders generally (but do not always) react negatively to news of misconduct.
– Most companies take an active approach in responding to allegations of misconduct.
– Corporate punishment for CEO misbehavior is inconsistent.
– CEO misbehavior can reverberate across the organization.
For boards of directors, the lessons are clear: For better or worse, the CEO is often the face of the corporation. When the CEO engages in misconduct, the board has an obligation to investigate the matter, take proactive steps to ensure that it is properly dealt with, and — most important — ensure that corporate reputation, culture, and long-term performance are not damaged.
Je vous invite à lire plus à fond les répercussions de ces mauvais comportements sur la réputation de l’organisation ainsi que les décisions prises par les CA dans chaque situation.
Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
Most boards of directors know what to do when their CEO is accused of illegal activity. They conduct an independent investigation, and if the allegations are verified, they take corrective action. In most cases, the CEO is terminated.
It is much less obvious what actions the board should take when the CEO is accused of behavior that is questionable but not illegal. For example, if the CEO makes controversial public statements, has personal relations with an employee or contractor, or develops a reputation for being rude, overbearing, or verbally combative, the board must decide what merits investigation. It must also decide whether to address matters publicly or privately. These decisions become even more important when CEO misbehavior is picked up by the media, bringing unwanted public attention that can have an impact on the organization and its reputation.
To examine how corporations handle allegations of CEO misbehavior, we conducted an extensive review of news media between 2000 and 2015. We identified 38 incidents where a CEO’s behavior garnered a meaningful level of media coverage (defined as more than 10 unique news references). We categorized these incidents as follows:
34% involved reports of a CEO lying to the board or shareholders over personal matters, such as a drunk driving offense, undisclosed criminal record, falsification of credentials, or other behavior.
21% involved a sexual affair or relations with a subordinate, contractor, or consultant.
16% involved CEOs making use of corporate funds in a manner that is questionable but not strictly illegal.
16% involved CEOs engaging in objectionable personal behavior or using abusive language.
13% involved CEOs making public statements that are offensive to customers or social groups.
Examining these incidents in detail, five main findings stood out:
The impact of misbehavior on corporate reputation is significant and long-lasting. The incidents that we identified were cited in over 250 news stories each, on average. Furthermore, media coverage was persistent, with references made to the CEO’s actions up to an average of 4.9 years after initial occurrence. For example, news stories today continue to reference former American Apparel CEO Dov Charney’s odd behavior of walking around the company’s offices in his underwear, even though it was first reported over 10 years ago. Boards should not expect allegations of misbehavior to disappear quickly.
Shareholders generally (but do not always) react negatively to news of misconduct. Among the companies in our sample, share prices declined by a market-adjusted 3.1% (1.1% median) over the three-day trading period around the initial news story. For example, Hewlett-Packard stock fell almost 9% following reports that former CEO Mark Hurd had a personal relationship with a female contractor. However, shareholder reactions are not uniformly negative. Of the 38 companies in our sample. 11 exhibited positive stock price returns when CEO misbehavior made the news. Perhaps unexpectedly, there is no discernible relationship between the type of behavior and stock price reaction.
Most companies take an active approach in responding to allegations of misconduct. In 84% of cases, the company issued a press release or formal statement on the matter. In 71% of cases, a spokesperson provided direct commentary to the press. Board members were much less likely to speak to the media, making direct comments only 37% of the time. In over half of cases (55%), the board of directors was known to initiate an independent review or investigation. The board is most likely to announce an independent review in cases of potential financial misconduct. However, the willingness of an individual director to discuss the matter directly with the press does not appear to be associated with the type of behavior involved or the “severity” of the CEO’s actions.
Corporate punishment for CEO misbehavior is inconsistent. In 58% of incidents, the CEO was eventually terminated for his or her actions. Questionable financial practices was the only category of behavior that almost uniformly resulted in termination; all other behaviors resulted in both outcomes (termination and retention) across our sample. Even behavior as straightforward as falsifying information on a resume was treated inconsistently by different boards. In a third of cases (32%), the board took actions other than termination in response to CEO misconduct, such as stripping the CEO of the chair title, removing the CEO from the board, amending the corporate code of conduct, reducing or eliminating the CEO’s bonus, other director resignation, and other changes to board structure or composition.
CEO misbehavior can reverberate across the organization. Approximately one-third of companies faced additional fallout from the CEO’s actions, including loss of a major client, federal investigation, shareholder or federal lawsuit, or shareholder action such as a proxy battle. Forty-five percent of companies in the sample experienced a significant unrelated governance issue following the event, such as an accounting restatement, unrelated lawsuit, shareholder action, or bankruptcy. As for the CEOs themselves, three were reported to resign from other boards because of their actions. Two CEOs who were terminated were subsequently rehired by the same company. We found that many continued in their position or were hired by other corporations or investment groups; otherwise there was no notable news of what happened to them professionally.
For boards of directors, the lessons are clear: For better or worse, the CEO is often the face of the corporation. When the CEO engages in misconduct, the board has an obligation to investigate the matter, take proactive steps to ensure that it is properly dealt with, and — most important — ensure that corporate reputation, culture, and long-term performance are not damaged.
David Larcker* is the James Irvin Miller Professor of Accounting and Senior Faculty at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University. He is a co-author of the books Corporate Governance Matters and A Real Look at Real World Corporate Governance.
Brian Tayan** is a researcher at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University. He is a co-author of the books Corporate Governance Matters and A Real Look at Real World Corporate Governance.
Chaque année, la firme ISS produit un rapport très attendu sur les pratiques relatives aux conseils d’administration.
L’étude publiée par Carol Bowie*, directrice de la recherche à Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), et parue sur le forum du HLS, présente de façon claire l’état de la situation, les tendances qui se dessinent ainsi que les nouvelles normes qui prévalent dans les entreprises du S&P 500, du MidCap 400 et du SmallCap 600.
Par exemple, 88 % des entreprises du S&P 500 ont adopté la pratique du vote majoritaire, délaissant ainsi la pratique de la pluralité des voix.
Également, plus de 80 % des entreprises du S&P 500 soumettent leurs administrateurs à des élections annuelles, délaissant ainsi l’habitude des « Staggered Boards » (élections des administrateurs à des périodes différentes).
En ce qui concerne la réalité de la diversité des conseils d’administration, on note des progrès continus, mais lents. Ainsi, 98 % des entreprises du S&P 500 ont au moins une femme sur le conseil, et 79 % ont au moins un membre d’une minorité sur le conseil. Au total, environ 20 % de femmes siègent à des conseils d’administration et 17 % des administrateurs proviennent de minorités diverses.
Enfin, l’étude montre que 13,3 % de tous les postes d’administrateurs ont été pourvus par de nouvelles recrues (moins de 2 ans sur le CA).
Je vous invite à jeter un œil aux tableaux qui ponctuent le rapport.
ISS’ latest update of the structure and composition of boards and individual director attributes at Standard & Poor’s U.S. “Super 1,500” companies (i.e., companies in the S&P 500, MidCap 400, and SmallCap 600 indices) found a number of new and continuing trends in board practices and director attributes at these key index companies.
Majority Votes for Directors and Annual Board Elections are the New Normal
Based on analysis of public filings (primarily proxy statements) related to shareholder meetings occurring from July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015, the study reports that annual board elections and majority vote standards for those elections are now the norm across the S&P 1500. While larger companies initially led the way in adopting these accountability enhancements, the pace of abandoning staggered board terms at smaller companies picked up speed in 2015. Also, Small- and MidCap companies adopted majority vote standards for board elections at a faster pace than their S&P 500 counterparts in 2015—increasing by 4 and 3 percentages points, respectively among the Small- and MidCap firms. For the third consecutive year, well over half of all study companies have majority voting standards, which is now the clear market standard at S&P 500 companies, with over 88 percent of companies in the index having adopted the practice. Only 61 total S&P 500 companies maintain a plurality vote standard, down from 67 last year and 87 in 2013.
There has also been a significant increase over the last five years in the number of companies holding annual elections, both at the S&P 1500 and at each constituent index. The proportion is significantly higher at S&P 500 companies, where it has risen more than 20 percentage points in the last five years. Still, over 60 percent of S&P 1500 companies (and over 80 percent of S&P 500 companies) now hold annual elections for all directors, While the prevalence has increased in the S&P 1500 every year since 2009, the largest jump occurred last year, when it rose from 60 to 64 percent, driven by an 8 percentage point increase at the S&P 500, where only 84 boards now hold staggered elections.
Many companies completed the gradual removals of their classified board structures that had begun in response to a large wave of shareholder proposals offered in a campaign organized by the now defunct Shareholder Rights Project at Harvard Law School. A majority of SmallCap companies held annual elections for the first time in 2014, a trend that has continued, as an additional 2 percent of the index’s companies held annual elections in 2015. Bucking the trend were the MidCap companies, which showed a slight decrease in the proportion holding annual elections in 2015, after steading increases in 2009 through 2014.
Board Diversity
Many corporate governance experts believe that the interplay of different backgrounds and perspectives enhances the effectiveness of boards and facilitates greater long-term corporate success. Some advocates for board diversity believe that a “tone at the top” will penetrate the corporate hierarchy and lead to increased diversity across all ranks of employment.
Companies with larger market caps generally have higher levels of gender and racial/ethnic diversity than those with smaller valuations. As of ISS’ latest analysis, almost all S&P 500 companies have at least one female or minority director, while 90 percent of MidCap boards and 78 percent of SmallCap boards have at least one female or minority member. There has been a market-wide increase over the past five years in board diversity:
Ninety-eight percent of S&P 500 boards have at least one female member and 79 percent have at least one minority, up from 89 and 63 percent in 2010, respectively;
Eighty-four percent of MidCap boards have at least one female member and 53 percent have at least one minority, increased from 74 and 36 percent in 2010, respectively; and
Sixty-nine percent of SmallCap boards have at least one female member and 41 percent have at least one minority, increased from 54 and 22 percent in 2010, respectively.
More than 88 percent of S&P 1500 companies have at least one female or minority director, and a majority of the S&P 1500 have either one female and/or one minority, who, in some instances, are the same individual. Minority women hold 329 directorships, an increase from 279 in 2014. Although this represents an absolute increase, the proportion of S&P 1500 directorships held by minority women has remained at approximately 2.4 percent since 2010.
New Directors
In 2015, 1,833 seats, or about 13.3 percent of all directorships, were filled by directors with less than two years’ tenure and who were elected for the first time in 2014 or 2015 (“new” directors). That compares with about 12 percent of all directorships filled by “new” directors in last year’s analysis, suggesting a slight increase in the turnover rate. The characteristics of these new directors were analyzed to develop a better understanding of what companies may be considering when choosing new director candidates.
New directors are generally younger than directors with tenures of over two years. Also, the average age difference is 5.3 years, an increase from 2014.
Fifty-three percent of new directors serve on only one board, which continues the trend identified in last year’s study, which found that nominating committees are bringing on directors who have no prior board experience. However, a majority of open S&P 500 positions, 56 percent, were filled by a director who sits on at least one other board, which drives the “average” number of outside boards for new directors up to nearly one and underscores the fact that market leading companies seek directors with a track record. New directors are more likely than those with more than two years tenure to be outside hires; 46 percent of all directors joining boards in 2014 and 2015 sit on only one board and are not executives of the companies whose boards they have joined.
Similarly, the percentage of new directors who are female or identified as an ethnic/racial minority continues to exceed the proportion of longer-tenured female- and minority-held S&P 1500 directorships. While the proportion of new directorships held by females has increased for several consecutive years, this momentum seems to be slower for minority directors. Minority directors comprised 16 percent of new directorships in 2015, compared to 10 percent of all new directors in 2014. Female directors filled 27 percent of new directorships in 2015, up from 22 percent in 2014, and 20 percent in 2013. This increase highlights both the overall growth in the number of directorships held by women and the acceleration in the growth of female directorships.
______________________
*This post is based on a recent publication authored by ISS U.S. Research analysts Andrew Borek, Liz Williams, and Rob Yates. Information on how to obtain the full report is available here.
Les investisseurs et les actionnaires reconnaissent le rôle prioritaire que les administrateurs de sociétés jouent dans la gouvernance et, conséquemment, ils veulent toujours plus d’informations sur le processus de nomination des administrateurs et sur la composition du conseil d’administration.
L’article qui suit, paru sur le Forum du Harvard Law School, a été publié par Paula Loop, directrice du centre de la gouvernance de PricewaterhouseCoopers. Il s’agit essentiellement d’un compte rendu sur l’évolution des facteurs clés de la composition des conseils d’administration. La présentation s’appuie sur une infographie remarquable.
Ainsi, on apprend que 41 % des campagnes menées par les activistes étaient reliées à la composition des CA, et que 20 % des CA ont modifié leur composition en réponse aux activités réelles ou potentielles des activistes.
L’article s’attarde sur la grille de composition des conseils relative aux compétences et habiletés requises. Également, on présente les arguments pour une plus grande diversité des CA et l’on s’interroge sur la situation actuelle.
Enfin, l’article revient sur les questions du nombre de mandats des administrateurs et de l’âge de la retraite de ceux-ci ainsi que sur les préoccupations des investisseurs eu égard au renouvellement et au rajeunissement des CA.
Le travail de renouvellement du conseil ne peut se faire sans la mise en place d’un processus d’évaluation complet du fonctionnement du CA et des administrateurs.
À mon avis, c’est certainement un article à lire pour bien comprendre toutes les problématiques reliées à la composition des conseils d’administration.
In today’s business environment, companies face numerous challenges that can impact success—from emerging technologies to changing regulatory requirements and cybersecurity concerns. As a result, the expertise, experience, and diversity of perspective in the boardroom play a more critical role than ever in ensuring effective oversight. At the same time, many investors and other stakeholders are seeking influence on board composition. They want more information about a company’s director nominees. They also want to know that boards and their nominating and governance committees are appropriately considering director tenure, board diversity and the results of board self-evaluations when making director nominations. All of this is occurring within an environment of aggressive shareholder activism, in which board composition often becomes a central focus.
Shareholder activism and board composition
At the same time, a growing number of companies are adopting proxy access rules—allowing shareholders that meet certain ownership criteria to submit a limited number of director candidates for inclusion on the company’s annual proxy. It has become a top governance issue over the last two years, with many shareholders viewing it as a step forward for shareholder rights. And it’s another factor causing boards to focus more on their makeup.
So within this context, how should directors and investors be thinking about board composition, and what steps should be taken to ensure boards are adequately refreshing themselves?
Assessing what you have–and what you need
In a rapidly changing business climate, a high-performing board requires agile directors who can grasp concepts quickly. Directors need to be fiercely independent thinkers who consciously avoid groupthink and are able to challenge management—while still contributing to a productive and collegial boardroom environment. A strong board includes directors with different backgrounds, and individuals who understand how the company’s strategy is impacted by emerging economic and technological trends.
Sample board composition grid: What skills and attributes does your board need?
In assessing their composition, boards and their nominating and governance committees need to think critically about what skills and attributes the board currently has, and how they tie to oversight of the company. As companies’ strategies change and their business models evolve, it is imperative that board composition be evaluated regularly to ensure that the right mix of skills are present to meet the company’s current needs. Many boards conduct a gap analysis that compares current director attributes with those that it has identified as critical to effective oversight. They can then choose to fill any gaps by recruiting new directors with such attributes or by consulting external advisors. Some companies use a matrix in their proxy disclosures to graphically display to investors the particular attributes of each director nominee.
Board diversity is a hot-button issue
Diversity is a key element of any discussion of board composition. Diversity includes not only gender, race, and ethnicity, but also diversity of skills, backgrounds, personalities, opinions, and experiences. But the pace of adding more gender and ethnic diversity to public company boards has been only incremental over the past five years. For example, a December 2015 report from the US Government Accountability Office estimates that it could take four decades for the representation of women on US boards to be the same as men. [1] Some countries, including Norway, Belgium, and Italy, have implemented regulatory quotas to increase the percentage of women on boards.
Even if equal proportions of women and men joined boards each year beginning in 2015, GAO estimated that it could take more than four decades for women’s representation on boards to be on par with that of men’s.
—US Government Accountability Office, December 2015
According to PwC’s 2015 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, more than 80% of directors believe board diversity positively impacts board and company performance. But more than 70% of directors say there are impediments to increasing board diversity. [2] One of the main impediments is that many boards look to current or former CEOs as potential director candidates. However, only 4% of S&P 500 CEOs are female, [3] less than 2% of the Fortune 500 CEOs are Hispanic or Asian, and only 1% of the Fortune 500 CEOs are African-American. [4] So in order to get boards to be more diverse, the pool of potential director candidates needs to be expanded.
Is there diversity on US boards?
Source: Spencer Stuart US Board Index 2015, November 2015.
SEC rules require companies to disclose the backgrounds and qualifications of director nominees and whether diversity was a nomination consideration. In January 2016, SEC Chair Mary Jo White included diversity as a priority for the SEC’s 2016 agenda and suggested that the SEC’s disclosure rules pertaining to board diversity may be enhanced.
While those who aspire to become directors must play their part, the drive to make diversity a priority really has to come from board leadership: CEOs, lead directors, board chairs, and nominating and governance committee chairs. These leaders need to be proactive and commit to making diversity part of the company and board culture. In order to find more diverse candidates, boards will have to look in different places. There are often many untapped, highly qualified, and diverse candidates just a few steps below the C-suite, people who drive strategies, run large segments of the business, and function like CEOs.
How long is too long? Director tenure and mandatory retirement
The debate over board tenure centers on whether lengthy board service negatively impacts director independence, objectivity, and performance. Some investors believe that long-serving directors can become complacent over time—making it less likely that they will challenge management. However, others question the virtue of forced board turnover. They argue that with greater tenure comes good working relationships with stakeholders and a deep knowledge of the company. One approach to this issue is to strive for diversity of board tenure—consciously balancing the board’s composition to include new directors, those with medium tenures, and those with long-term service.
This debate has heated up in recent years, due in part to attention from the Council of Institutional Investors (the Council). In 2013, the Council introduced a revised policy statement on board tenure. While the policy “does not endorse a term limit,” [5] the Council noted that directors with extended tenures should no longer be considered independent. More recently, the large pension fund CalPERS has been vocal about tenure, stating that extended board service could impede objectivity. CalPERS updated its 2016 proxy voting guidelines by asking companies to explain why directors serving for over twelve years should still be considered independent.
We believe director independence can be compromised at 12 years of service—in these situations a company should carry out rigorous evaluations to either classify the director as non-independent or provide a detailed annual explanation of why the director can continue to be classified as independent.
— CalPERS Global Governance Principles, second reading, March 14, 2016
Factors in the director tenure and age debate
Source: Spencer Stuart US Board Index 2015, November 2015.
Many boards have a mandatory retirement age for their directors. However, the average mandatory retirement age has increased in recent years. Of the 73% of S&P 500 boards that have a mandatory retirement age in place, 97% set that age at 72 or older—up from 57% that did so ten years ago. Thirty-four percent set it at 75 or older. [6] Others believe that director term limits may be a better way to encourage board refreshment, but only 3% of S&P 500 boards have such policies. [7]
Investor concern
Some institutional investors have expressed concern about board composition and refreshment, and this increased scrutiny could have an impact on proxy voting decisions.
What are investors saying about board composition and refreshment?
Sources: BlackRock, Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities, February 2015; California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Statement of Investment Policy for Global Governance, March 16, 2015; State Street Global Advisors’ US Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines, March 2015.
Proxy advisors’ views on board composition—recent developments
Proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services’s (ISS) governance rating system QuickScore 3.0 views tenure of more than nine years as potentially compromising director independence. ISS’s 2016 voting policy updates include a clarification that a “small number” of long-tenured directors (those with more than nine years of board service) does not negatively impact the company’s QuickScore governance rating, though ISS does not provide specifics on the acceptable quantity.
Glass Lewis’ updated 2016 voting policies address nominating committee performance. Glass Lewis may now recommend against the nominating and governance committee chair “where the board’s failure to ensure the board has directors with relevant experience, either through periodic director assessment or board refreshment, has contributed to a company’s poor performance.” Glass Lewis believes that shareholders are best served when boards are diverse on the basis of age, race, gender and ethnicity, as well as on the basis of geographic knowledge, industry experience, board tenure, and culture.
How can directors proactively address board refreshment?
The first step in refreshing your board is deciding whether to add a new board member and determining which director attributes are most important. One way to do this is to conduct a self-assessment. Directors also have a number of mechanisms to address board refreshment. For one, boards can consider new ways of recruiting director candidates. They can take charge of their composition through active and strategic succession planning. And they can also use robust self-assessments to gauge individual director performance—and replace directors who are no longer contributing.
Act on the results of board assessments. Boards should use their annual self-assessment to help spark discussions about board refreshment. Having a robust board assessment process can offer insights into how the board is functioning and how individual directors are performing. The board can use this process to identify directors that may be underperforming or whose skills may no longer match what the company needs. It’s incumbent upon the board chair or lead director and the chair of the nominating and governance committee to address any difficult matters that may arise out of the assessment process, including having challenging conversations with underperforming directors. In addition, some investors are asking about the results of board assessments. CalPERS and CalSTRS have both called on boards to disclose more information about the impact of their self-assessments on board composition decisions. [8]
Take a strategic approach to director succession planning. Director succession planning is essential to promoting board refreshment. But, less than half of directors “very much” believe their board is spending enough time on director succession. [9] In board succession planning, it’s important to think about the current state of the board, the tenure of current members, and the company’s future needs. Boards should identify possible director candidates based upon anticipated turnover and director retirements.
Broaden the pool of candidates. Often, boards recruit directors by soliciting recommendations from other sitting directors, which can be a small pool. Forward-looking boards expand the universe of potential qualified candidates by looking outside of the C-suite, considering investor recommendations, and by looking for candidates outside the corporate world—from the retired military, academia, and large non-profits. This will provide a broader pool of individuals with more diverse backgrounds who can be great board contributors.
In sum, evaluating board composition and refreshing the board may be challenging at times, but it’s increasingly a topic of concern for many investors, and it’s critical to the board’s ability to stay current, effective, and focused on enhancing long-term shareholder value.
The complete publication, including footnotes and appendix, is available here.
Endnotes:
[1] United States Government Accountability Office, “Corporate Boards: Strategies to Address Representation of Women Include Federal Disclosure Requirements,” December 2015. (go back)
*Paula Loop is Leader of the Governance Insights Center at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on a PwC publication by Ms. Loop and Paul DeNicola. The complete publication, including footnotes and appendix, is available here.
Voici un article très intéressant, récemment publié dans Harvard Business Review par Steven Boivie, Scott D. Graffin, Abbie Oliver et Michael C. Withers, qui montre, de façon convaincante, que, pour un haut dirigeant, le fait de siéger à un CA externe augmente ses chances de promotion dans son entreprise.
Lorsque l’on sait que le travail des administrateurs des entreprises publiques (cotées) est de plus en plus exigeant, l’on peut se demander pourquoi un PDG (CEO) accepte de siéger à un conseil d’administration d’une autre entreprise !
Les auteurs de l’étude ont trouvé des réponses à cette question. Les hauts dirigeants des entreprises de la S&P 1500 qui siègent à d’autres CA augmentent de 44 % leurs chances d’accéder à un poste de CEO dans une entreprise de la S&P 1500, comparativement à leurs collègues qui ne siègent pas à d’autres CA. Et, même s’ils n’ont pas de promotion, la recherche montre que leur rémunération s’accroît de 13 %.
So what do these findings mean for today’s boards of directors and aspiring CEOs? The evidence shows that board appointments increase an executive’s visibility and give him/her access to unique contacts and learning opportunities. Further, these opportunities translate into tangible economic benefits, specifically promotions and raises, which help explain why a sane person would choose to sit on a board.
La recherche d’administrateurs avec un profil de CEO ou de haut dirigeant est de plus en plus fréquente et les firmes de recrutement considèrent que l’obtention de promotions est un signe de leadership notable.
L’étude conclut que, contrairement à la croyance populaire, le fait de siéger à des conseils constitue un atout pour un haut dirigeant, un moyen susceptible d’accroître ses opportunités de carrière.
Il semble bien que le haut dirigeant considère qu’il y a un avantage personnel réel à exercer la fonction d’administrateur dans une autre entreprise. Mais, le CA de l’entreprise sur lequel il siège en retire-t-il un avantage aussi appréciable ?
Ultimately board service is a key professional development tool in grooming potential CEOs that executives and boards alike are beginning to recognize and value.
More than 25 years ago, William Sahlman wrote the HBR article “Why Sane People Shouldn’t Serve on Public Boards,” in which he compared serving on a board to driving without a seatbelt, that it was just too risky—to their time, reputations, and finances—for too little reward.
Board service has always been very demanding. When Warren Buffett retired from Coca-Cola’s board in 2006, he said he no longer had the time necessary. When you consider all of the retreats, travel, reading, meeting prep time, transactions, and committee meetings involved, it is a wonder anyone serves at all.
So why would a busy executive agree to sit on a board? Why is there is a cottage industry of executive search firms focusing on “reverse board searches,” where they proactively work to place executives on outside corporate boards? What do executives gain from serving on boards?
This question was at the heart of a recent study we conducted that is forthcoming at the Academy of Management Journal. In an effort to explore executives’ motivations for serving on boards, we looked at how board service is evaluated in the executive labor market. Specifically we studied whether or not board service increased an executive’s likelihood of receiving a promotion, becoming a CEO, and/or receiving a pay increase.
We hypothesized that being a board director would help an executive in two main ways: First, sitting on a board serves as an important signal or “seal of approval,” for an executive. It means that other people think this executive has potential and value as a result of being selected to serve on a board. Second, board service is an avenue for an executive to gain access to unique knowledge, skills, and connections, so firms actively use external board appointments as a way to groom and develop executives. As Mary Cranston, former CEO and Chairman of Pillsbury, LLP said in an interview, “Being on that board really helped me develop as a CEO because I had another CEO to watch. It was an incredible leadership school for me. On a board you’re together a lot, and you’re working on problems together and you have a shared fiduciary duty, so it creates very tight bonds of friendship.” Similarly, Sempra CEO Debra L. Reed has also said that sitting on the board of another company is “better than an M.B.A.”
…
*Steven Boivie is an associate professor in the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University, Scott D. Graffin is an associate professor at the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business and also an International Research Fellow at Oxford University’s Centre for Corporate Reputation, Abbie G. Oliver is a doctoral candidate in strategic management at the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business, Michael C. Withers is an assistant professor of management in the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University.
Comment votre organisation peut-elle mieux contrôler les risques liés à ses tiers ? C’est ce que vous apprend ce document de Deloitte dans un numéro du bulletin « À l’ordre du jour du conseil ».
Encore récemment, le risque lié aux fournisseurs se limitait pour ainsi dire à la qualité des produits ou des matières premières fournies ou à la possibilité qu’un fournisseur ne respecte pas ses engagements d’approvisionnement et perturbe ainsi la production. Aujourd’hui, les entreprises sont de plus en plus tenues responsables du comportement de leurs fournisseurs, que ce soit en ce qui a trait aux pratiques en matière de santé, de sécurité et d’environnement, au respect des lois sur le travail et autres règlements, à l’utilisation de la propriété intellectuelle, à l’approvisionnement en matières premières, à la corruption et plus encore. Et comme les clients ne font pas de différence entre une organisation et ses fournisseurs, les actions de tiers peuvent également nuire à la réputation de l’organisation ou à la confiance de ses clients.
Voici un aperçu de ce document, notamment les questions que les administrateurs devraient se poser eu égard aux risques reliés aux entités tierces. On y présente également le point de vue de José Écio Pereira, administrateur de compagnie et associé retraité de Deloitte.
L’usine d’un fournisseur s’effondre, faisant des centaines de victimes parmi les travailleurs, dont certains sont des enfants. Des milliers de fichiers contenant des données sur les cartes de crédit de clients et d’autres renseignements financiers confidentiels font l’objet de piratage d’un tiers autorisé à accéder au réseau de l’entreprise. Un fournisseur a utilisé des matériaux contaminés et une vaste campagne de rappel visant certains produits doit être lancée.
Encore récemment, le risque lié aux fournisseurs se limitait pour ainsi dire à la qualité des produits ou des matières premières fournis ou à la possibilité qu’un fournisseur ne respecte pas ses engagements d’approvisionnement et perturbe ainsi la production.
De nos jours, des lois comme la Foreign Corrupt Practices Act aux États-Unis, la Bribery Act au Royaume-Uni et d’autres encore font en sorte que les entreprises sont de plus en plus souvent tenues responsables des agissements de leurs fournisseurs. De même, les clients ne distinguent pas toujours une entreprise de ses fournisseurs. Pour eux, l’entreprise est celle qui leur fournit une solution ; s’il survient un problème, c’est elle qu’ils tiennent responsable, et c’est donc sa réputation qui est en péril. C’est pourquoi les entreprises doivent maintenant élargir leur surveillance des risques à l’entreprise étendue1 et observer chez leurs tiers fournisseurs les pratiques de santé, de sécurité et d’environnement, le respect des lois sur le travail et autres règlements, l’utilisation de la propriété intellectuelle, l’approvisionnement en matières premières, la corruption et plus encore.
Questions que les administrateurs devraient poser
(1) Notre entreprise a-t-elle évalué de manière exhaustive son risque lié aux tiers et, si c’est le cas, quelles en sont les composantes les plus déterminantes pour l’entreprise à l’heure actuelle ?
(2) Quels sont les tiers susceptibles d’entraver le plus gravement la capacité de l’entreprise à atteindre ses buts et objectifs stratégiques ?
(3) Que faisons-nous pour gérer et surveiller de manière proactive le risque et son évolution au sein de notre entreprise étendue ? Quels outils de gestion du risque utilisons-nous ?
(4) Qui est responsable de la gestion du risque lié aux tiers dans notre entreprise ?
(5) À quelle fréquence la direction informe-t-elle le conseil d’administration de son évaluation des risques de tiers et du processus mis en place pour atténuer ces risques ? Cette information est-elle suffisamment détaillée et présentée en temps opportun ?
Le point de vue d’un administrateur
José Écio Pereira est membre des conseils d’administration de Votorantim Cimentos, Fibria et Gafisa et a été membre du conseil de BRMalls ; il préside également le comité d’audit de Votorantim Cimentos et de Gafisa. Il est le propriétaire fondateur de JEPereira Consultoria em Gestão de Negócios et a été associé, maintenant à la retraite, de Deloitte Brésil.
Le risque lié aux entités tierces figure-t-il à l’ordre du jour des conseils d’administration ?
Les conseils dont je connais le fonctionnement effectuent une évaluation du risque tous les trois ou quatre mois. Le risque lié aux entités tierces à proprement parler n’est pas un point distinct à l’ordre du jour, mais nous l’abordons dans notre analyse des risques. Ceci dit, il est clair que de nos jours, les conseils accordent plus d’attention au risque lié aux tiers qu’il y a à peine deux ans. Au Brésil, c’est principalement à cause de la loi anticorruption (Clean Company Act) de 2014. En vertu de cette loi, les entreprises peuvent être tenues responsables des activités illégales ou de la conduite contraire à l’éthique de leurs tiers fournisseurs.
Depuis que cette loi est en vigueur, les administrateurs examinent de beaucoup plus près les risques associés aux tiers fournisseurs des entreprises qu’ils supervisent. Ils examinent les pratiques de leurs fournisseurs en matière de conditions de travail, de normes pour les employés, de mesures de santé et de sécurité et d’autres facteurs pour s’assurer que tous respectent les normes de l’entreprise qui a fait appel à eux. La santé financière des fournisseurs est un autre paramètre fort important, surtout au vu de la situation économique actuelle au Brésil. Les entreprises veulent être sûres que leurs fournisseurs paient leurs impôts et respectent leurs obligations juridiques, en particulier dans leurs relations avec leurs employés, et qu’ils seront à même de poursuivre leur exploitation.
Les administrateurs examinent-ils les relations avec des tiers dans le contexte du cyberrisque ?
Je pense que les entreprises dont les systèmes sont connectés avec ceux de tiers fournisseurs à des fins d’approvisionnement ou de logistique sont conscientes de l’existence du cyberrisque et prennent les mesures nécessaires pour s’en prémunir. Mais ces mesures sont généralement liées aux échanges de produits et de services.
Dans une perspective plus vaste, je dirais que la plupart des entreprises ne disposent pas de systèmes d’information appropriés pour gérer leurs relations avec des tiers. Les systèmes de la plupart des entreprises ne sont pas assez sophistiqués pour se connecter aux systèmes des fournisseurs ; les entreprises ont recours à divers outils pour gérer leurs relations avec des tiers et souvent, ces outils ne sont pas très bien intégrés entre eux. Les relations sont par exemple gérées à l’aide de plusieurs systèmes, y compris des chiffriers et des outils manuels qui ne sont pas du tout conçus pour cet usage.
À qui devrait revenir la responsabilité des tiers fournisseurs ?
Le conseil d’administration doit jouer un rôle de supervision et faire en sorte que les cadres supérieurs disposent d’un processus de gestion du risque lié aux tiers.
Au Brésil, c’est souvent le service de l’approvisionnement qui reste responsable des problèmes opérationnels et qui vérifie que les produits et les services sont bien fournis selon les modalités du contrat conclu avec le tiers fournisseur. De plus, nombre d’entreprises mettent aussi sur pied une fonction particulière chargée de la gestion des contrats conclus avec des tiers. La plupart des entreprises brésiliennes entretiennent plusieurs relations avec des tiers : services alimentaires, sécurité, transports, fabrication. Toutes sont essentielles au fonctionnement d’une entreprise au quotidien. Les entreprises sont donc nombreuses à affecter davantage de ressources à la gestion efficace des contrats.
Certaines entreprises surveillent constamment leurs fournisseurs pour s’assurer que les contrats sont observés à la lettre. Bon nombre exigent que leurs fournisseurs autoévaluent leur conformité contractuelle, en plus d’effectuer des audits périodiques et d’autres tests afin de vérifier le respect des contrats. Toutes ces mesures représentent un travail colossal et parfois, il faut y consacrer une fonction administrative particulière.
Je vais vous relater un exemple authentique. L’une des sociétés avec lesquelles je collabore est en train de construire de nouvelles installations de grande envergure. C’est un investissement de près de 2 milliards de dollars américains, et c’est un projet d’environ : 18 mois. À l’heure actuelle, la construction vient juste de commencer. Plusieurs fournisseurs y travaillent, que ce soit pour la sécurité du chantier ou pour l’approvisionnement en matériel ou son installation.
L’entreprise a mis sur pied un comité directeur de projet qui comprend entre autres des membres de l’équipe de direction. Ce comité se réunit au moins une fois tous les : 15 jours, et les relations avec les fournisseurs reviennent justement sans cesse à son ordre du jour. C’est beaucoup plus qu’une question de diligence raisonnable ; le comité procède aussi au suivi constant des tiers fournisseurs.
Le comité directeur présente chaque mois au conseil l’état d’avancement du projet. Le rapport d’avancement consigne tout ce qui a trait aux tiers fournisseurs : le défaut de verser les retenues sur salaires des employés, de payer des impôts fonciers ou des avantages sociaux, la violation des règles de santé et de sécurité sur le chantier, aussi bien que les problèmes opérationnels comme le non-respect des échéances par un fournisseur ou la qualité insuffisante des services qu’il a rendus. Lorsque des problèmes surgissent, le comité de projet les reporte sur la « carte du risque » du projet, et la direction prend les mesures de suivi nécessaires, y compris l’application des pénalités contractuelles, le cas échéant.
Les entreprises devraient-elles aussi définir leurs propres normes déontologiques à l’endroit des tiers fournisseurs ?
Après l’entrée en vigueur de la loi brésilienne anticorruption, la plupart des entreprises ont passé en revue leurs normes déontologiques et leur code de conduite ; l’une des grandes nouveautés, c’est qu’elles y ont ajouté des procédures et des règles qui s’adressent aux tiers fournisseurs.
Par le passé, toutes les activités encadrant les règles de déontologie, comme la formation et les ateliers, étaient entreprises dans une perspective interne. Les normes s’appliquaient au personnel de l’entreprise, mais ne dépassaient pas les limites de celle-ci pour viser également les fournisseurs externes. Maintenant, la portée s’est élargie et les règles régissant les employés, les mesures de santé et de sécurité, les conditions de travail, l’obéissance aux lois, etc., englobent aussi les tiers fournisseurs. Les entreprises ont également étendu leurs programmes de formation et invitent leurs fournisseurs à leurs séminaires et ateliers où seront expliqués les règles et les processus de surveillance.
Avez-vous confiance dans les conseillers en rémunération pour faire des propositions salariales qui reflètent vraiment la contribution des dirigeants, et qui sont nécessaires pour la rétention des personnes ?
Dans quelle mesure ceux-ci sont-ils responsables de l’augmentation, souvent excessive, des rémunérations des dirigeants ?
Une étude, à laquelle le professeur Omesh Kini de Georgia State University a contribué, montre que, bien que les consultants soient embauchés par les comités de ressources humaines des CA, ceux-ci peuvent subir l’influence indirecte de la direction.
L’auteur décrit différentes approches de firmes de conseillers dans l’établissement des plans de rémunérations des dirigeants. Les firmes prétendent se différencier en proposant des « packages » de rémunération censés aligner les objectifs des actionnaires sur ceux des administrateurs. Les consultants sont sensibles aux effets du « say on pay » et, par conséquent, tentent d’élaborer des programmes de rémunération bien étoffés.
Plusieurs auteurs avancent que les firmes de conseils en rémunération ont tendance à utiliser des échantillons de comparaisons salariales susceptibles de justifier des rémunérations élevées, sinon excessives. Les auteurs suggèrent que les consultants souhaitent obtenir d’autres contrats avec l’entreprise (« repeat business ») et, en ce sens, elles agissent en fonction de leurs intérêts d’affaires.
L’étude montre que, contrairement à la croyance populaire, les firmes de conseillers en rémunération n’opèrent pas de façon très différente les unes des autres. En réalité, elles ne se distinguent pas par des approches particulières.
Les résultats de l’étude montrent que le choix de la firme de consultants a peu d’importance lorsque l’entreprise est reconnue pour ses solides mécanismes de gouvernance. En revanche, si la gouvernance de l’entreprise laisse à désirer (plusieurs administrateurs non indépendants, comité de RH peu soucieux, PDG omniprésent au CA, manque de leadership du président du conseil, CA peu informé, etc.), les firmes de consultants en rémunération sont plus enclines à proposer des plans salariaux généreux.
Les conclusions de cette étude indiquent que les mécanismes de gouvernance sont les facteurs les plus révélateurs dans l’établissement d’une rémunération juste et adéquate et que le choix d’une firme de conseillers particulière est très secondaire, sinon sans réels effets.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un résumé de l’article paru récemment sur le forum du Harvard Law School.
In our paper, Do Compensation Consultants have Distinct Styles?, which was recently made public on SSRN, we investigate whether the choice of a specific compensation consultant affects the compensation level and structure of top managers. This question is crucially important because existing studies that examine the compensation of CEOs show that compensation schemes influence their behavior and, consequently, impact firm economic outcomes. Compensation consultants are typically hired by the board of directors’ compensation committee to help craft compensation policies for the top managers of the corporation. Although they serve at the behest of the board, consultants can imprint their own distinct styles in fashioning compensation policies for a firm. We examine whether individual compensation consultants influence compensation policies in unique ways, i.e., exhibit distinct “styles,” after controlling for the known economic determinants of these policies.
Compensation consultants strive to signal distinct styles in a positive manner via their own advertising. For example, Towers Watson claims to “bring a unique portfolio of resources” to the table, with an emphasis on aligning board actions with shareholders (e.g., avoiding “say on pay” disputes). [1] Conversely, the media has reported that consulting advice varies little. For example, Towers Perrin was accused in 1997 of giving nearly identical reports on workplace diversity to multiple consulting clients across different industries. [2] Towers Perrin’s response was that all of the clients reported in the article faced similar economic forces and, therefore, received similar advice. [3] Thus, the anecdotal evidence on consultant style is mixed.
Compensation consultants have been in the direct line of fire from academics, board members, and policy makers. For example, Bebchuk and Fried (2014) take the view that managers will influence the employment of consultants who are likely to recommend higher pay and use their advice to justify excessive compensation. They further argue that compensation consultants, driven by their cross-selling incentives and/or desire to obtain repeat business, design compensation plans that provide excessive pay to managers. Thus, they suggest that compensation consultants worsen, rather than alleviate, agency problems within firms. Board members also claim that compensation consultants are to blame for spiraling CEO pay (Workforce, February 7, 2008). Finally, the former SEC Commissioner Roel C. Campos in a speech stated, “Another significant driver of excessive CEO compensation is the use of compensation consultants.” He goes on to add, “It is extremely difficult to avoid using high comparables, and consultants can pretty much find high comparable income data to support paying a high amount to the CEO. This is the case even if the consultant reports directly to the board.”
Thus, it is an open question whether individual compensation consultants: (i) have distinct styles and managers/boards hire consultants with a specific style, (ii) do not have distinct styles, but instead give compensation advice based purely on economic characteristics, and (iii) respond in a distinct manner to the incentives that arise from the governance environment of the client firm and their own self-interest. We investigate these issues in our paper. In the process, we attempt to shed light on whether compensation consultants facilitate compensation arrangements that reflect a competitive equilibrium in the level of pay and an efficient equilibrium in the incentives provided by optimal contracts (the “efficient” view) or that compensation contracts are written by captive boards and pliant compensation consultants to enhance the welfare of powerful CEOs (the “agency” view).
Our empirical tests detect little evidence suggesting that individual consultants have their own distinct styles. This evidence can be interpreted in two different ways. One possibility is that compensation consultants do not have any specific style and are perfect substitutes for each other. Consequently, the choice of compensation consultant will not matter much because their compensation advice will be grounded in the economic determinants of compensation level and structure and, thus, will be quite similar. An alternative possibility is that compensation consultants do not have distinct styles, but will work in their own self-interest by reacting to the incentives provided by the hiring firm. We distinguish between these views by finding style-like effects for the subsample of client firms with weak governance mechanisms, but not for the subsample of client firms with strong governance mechanisms. These results suggest that the choice of individual consultant does not matter in firms that have strong governance mechanisms. For the weak governance firms, we find that the style-like effects are largely driven by firms that hire consultants who do not have any non-compensation related businesses. In this subsample, both the lead return on assets and Tobin’s q for their client firms are significantly lower for consultants who recommend a higher salary or higher salary percentage as a proportion of total compensation. We also document style-like effects for the subsample of client firms with whom the consultant has existing business relationships unrelated to compensation consulting (conflicted consultants). Further, when these conflicted consultants recommend higher equity-based compensation, the client firms’ values as measured by their lead Tobin’s q are significantly lower and that these client firms tend to have higher accruals.
Our overall conclusion is that it does not matter which compensation consultant is hired by client firms with strong governance mechanisms in place because they will get similar advice based on their economic characteristics and environment. We conjecture that these client firms may still decide to choose a more reputable consultant because of the stronger certification role it plays, but they will likely have to pay higher fees for the services of this consultant. However, consistent with the Bebchuk and Fried (2104) view that consultants can aggravate agency problems within firms, we do observe style-like effects and some resultant perverse outcomes when there is greater potential for managers to take actions in their self-interest and/or when consultants have weaker incentives to provide objective advice. Thus, based on our subsample analysis, we find evidence consistent with both the “efficient” and “agency” views of compensation contracts.
Harvard Business Review vient de publier un excellent commentaire sur les attentes irréalistes exercées sur les conseils d’administration par les actionnaires, les autorités réglementaires, les investisseurs institutionnels et le public en général.
L’article des professeurs*Steven Boivie, Michael BednaretJoel Andrus identifie trois obstacles qui empêchent les administrateurs de jouer adéquatement leurs rôles.
(1) La plupart des administrateurs sont également impliqués dans plusieurs autres fonctions de direction ou d’administration dans d’autres organisations.
(2) Les administrateurs ne doivent pas se mêler directement des affaires de la direction des entreprises.
(3) La complexité des grandes entreprises est telle qu’il est impossible pour un groupe d’administrateurs se réunissant environ dix fois par année de bien jouer leur rôle de surveillance.
Les auteurs suggèrent trois moyens pour lever, un tant soit peu, les barrières qui restreignent l’efficacité des administrateurs dans l’exécution de leurs rôles et responsabilités.
Je vous invite à prendre connaissance des conclusions de leur étude publiée dans Academy of management Annals.
One of the key functions of a board of directors is to oversee the CEO to ensure that shareholders are getting the most out of their investment. This idea has led to regulation such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002), as well as requirements by the NYSE and NASDAQ that boards have a majority of independent directors and that members on the audit committee have financial expertise. Such rules rest on the premise that if we can just structure the board properly, management misconduct can largely be prevented. But is this a realistic expectation for directors? Maybe not.
Over the past few years there has been a growing gap between what shareholders and regulators expect of boards and what academic research shows they are capable of. For instance, consider what it means to be a director of a company like General Electric. GE states, “The primary role of GE’s Board of Directors is to oversee how management serves the interests of shareowners and other stakeholders.” However, GE’s annual revenues last year were $117 billion, and it had over 300,000 employees. The company provides services in a myriad of industries, such as health care, water treatment, aviation, and financing.
……
Taken together, much of the research we reviewed shows that these barriers are so prevalent and significant that consistent monitoring just isn’t very likely. Even when boards are filled with capable, motivated directors, we believe that there are simply too many barriers that prevent them from effectively protecting shareholders. In order to gain the full value from a board, we believe that shareholders and regulators need to focus on what boards can do, and then recalibrate their expectations.
First, we need to stop blaming boards for every failure. Too often the press, shareholders, and legislators blame corporate governance failures on directors, suggesting are unmotivated or unwilling to do their job properly. This was illustrated in 2012 when Groupon’s board came under fire for the company revising its earnings. JPMorgan Chase directors were similarly criticized for not preventing a $6 billion trading loss in the company’s investment office back in 2013.
Boards can do a better job in some cases, but these types of criticisms are often misguided. We have found that most directors are hardworking and capable — they’re just placed in a context that makes it virtually impossible for them to do what is expected of them.
Second, we need to focus more on boards’ ability to provide expert advice to CEOs based on their significant knowledge and experience. Board members often are able to provide insights that top executives may not have considered. Going back to GE’s board, most of the directors have expertise in a specific industry and can therefore draw on that experience to connect managers to external resources and knowledge that can benefit the firm. In addition to providing expert advice, boards can take a much more active role in guiding firms during times of crisis, such as when a CEO is being replaced, when the company is in financial distress, or when there is a significant merger or acquisition under consideration.
Third, if shareholders and regulators insist that boards must monitor, then we need to do a better job of removing the barriers in their way. For instance, if external job demands make it impossible for a director to devote enough time and mental energy to their duty as a director, perhaps we need to change our perception that the best directors are active CEOs of other firms. Maybe we also need to work to promote cultural change within boards through increased sharing of information and by using technology to allow them to meet more frequently.
Boards can and do play an important role in the success of companies. Instead of criticizing them for not meeting impractical expectations, we should value them sharing knowledge, providing advice, and lending legitimacy to firms by virtue of their reputations in the industry.
____________________________
Steven Boivie is an associate professor in the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. He received his Ph.D. in strategic management from the University of Texas at Austin.
Michael Bednar is an associate professor of Business Administration at the University of Illinois.
Joel Andrus is in the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University.
Voici un article de Sean J. Griffith, professeur de droit à la Fordham Law School, paru sur le forum du Harvard Law School qui montre toute l’importance que revêt aujourd’hui la gouvernance de « conformité ».
Bien entendu, le rôle des autorités réglementaires, ainsi que les nombreuses législations affectant la gouvernance des entreprises, sont des facteurs contribuant à l’accroissement du fardeau de la conformité.
On peut difficilement imaginer que les pressions à la conformité iront en diminuant. Les entreprises s’adaptent donc aux nouvelles exigences en créant de nouveaux départements dirigés par des chefs de la conformité (Chief Compliance Officer). L’article analyse les effets positifs et négatifs de ce virage.
En ce qui me concerne, je pense que l’on doit faire de grands efforts pour simplifier la gestion de conformité, car il me semble que celle-ci prend une place beaucoup trop importante.
Much of what scholars and practitioners think of as core corporate governance—the oversight and control of internal corporate affairs— is now being subsumed by “compliance.” Although compliance with law and regulation is not a new idea, the establishment of an autonomous department within firms to detect and deter violations of law and policy is. American corporations are at the dawn of a new era: the era of compliance.
Over the past decade, compliance has blossomed into a thriving industry, and the compliance department has emerged, in many firms, as the co-equal of the legal department. Compliance is commonly headed by a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) with a staff, in large firms, of hundreds or thousands. Moreover, although the CCO reports to the board, compliance is not wholly subordinate to the board. Boards cannot neglect the compliance function or choose not to install and maintain the function on par with industry peers. Furthermore, once compliance officers generate information through monitoring and surveillance, it is beyond a reasonable board’s authority to stop them. Compliance is thus under the board, but its authority comes from somewhere else.
Unlike other governance structures, the origins of compliance are exogenous to the firm. The impetus for compliance does not come from a traditional corporate constituency. It does not come from shareholders, managers, employees, creditors, or customers. It comes from the government. Compliance is a de facto government mandate imposed upon firms by means of ex ante incentives, ex post enforcement tactics, and formal signaling efforts. Moreover, in imposing compliance on firms, the government is not simply making rules that firms must follow, as it does when it passes new laws and regulations, nor is it adjusting its traditional tools—the amount of enforcement and the size of sanctions—to assure compliance with existing law and regulation. Instead, through compliance, the government dictates how firms must comply, imposing specific governance structures expressly designed to change how the firm conducts its business.
At the level of theory, the contemporary compliance function subverts the notion that corporate governance arrangements both are and ought to be the product of a bargain between shareholders and managers. Compliance rewrites Ronald Coase’s famous passage on the internal organization of firms. Compliance officers come into an organization not necessarily (or not entirely) at the behest of an “entrepreneur-co-ordinator, who directs production,” but rather pursuant to the directive of a government enforcer. Seen through the prism of compliance, the corporation no longer resembles a nexus of contracts but rather a real entity, subject to punishment and rehabilitation at the pleasure of a sovereign. Compliance thus rejects mainstream accounts of the firm in favor of a much older theoretical account.
Moreover, because government interventions in compliance come not through the traditional levers of state corporate or federal securities law, but rather through prosecutions and regulatory enforcement actions, a different set of interests and incentives are at play. Compliance questions arise over what purpose or purposes the firm should serve and revives the “other constituencies” debate. Compliance also raises the question whether the authorities pressing for corporate reforms have the right incentives and the right information to do so. If they do not, the development of compliance may merely result in the imposition of inefficient governance structures on firms.
My article, Corporate Governance in an Era of Compliance, recently published in the William & Mary Law Review, aims to provide a comprehensive account of the compliance function and the various ways in which it challenges corporate law orthodoxy. It launches compliance as a field of inquiry for scholars of corporate law and corporate governance by pairing a thorough descriptive account of the contemporary compliance function with a normative account of the ways in which compliance challenges settled theories of the firm and upsets the political economy of corporate governance.
Compliance begs foundational questions of what the firm is and who the author of corporate governance arrangements ought to be. There is a way out of these uncomfortable questions—by limiting the government’s ability to impose compliance reforms through enforcement or by mandating disclosure of firms’ compliance arrangements—but we may not want to set these issues aside so quickly. The fundamental goal of the Article is thus to start the scholarly conversation on compliance and corporate governance, to raise the issues and problems posed by the contemporary compliance function without necessarily solving them. The Article therefore seeks to provoke scholarly debate and provide a framework for prosecutors, policymakers, and scholars of corporate law and corporate governance to engage the question of compliance.
Il faut se méfier des problèmes de gouvernance liés au syndrome du « chic type » qui prévaut encore trop souvent dans les OBNL.
Les administrateurs des OBNL ont autant de responsabilités que ceux des autres types d’entreprises. Trop souvent, ceux-ci n’exercent pas la vigilance requise pour la bonne gestion de l’entité.
Les administrateurs n’osent pas prendre de décisions difficiles parce que les personnes impliquées sont bien connues de la communauté et, en conséquence, ils doivent faire preuve d’une tolérance accrue à leur égard…
C’est une erreur d’administrer une entreprise sur une présomption de bon gars (ou de bonne fille) du DG et des dirigeants en général. Il en va de même pour les administrateurs, et même pour le président du conseil.
L’article d’Eugene Fram* fait état des éléments importants à considérer plus particulièrement dans la gouvernance des OBNL.
At coffee a friend serving on a nonprofit board reported plans to resign from the board shortly. His complaints centered on the board’s unwillingness to take critical actions necessary to help the organization grow.
In specific, the board failed to take any action to remove a director who wasn’t attending meetings, but he refused to resign. His term had another year to go, and the board had a bylaws obligation to summarily remove him from the board. However, a majority of directors decided such action would hurt the director’s feelings. They were unwittingly accepting the “nice-guy” approach in place of taking professional action.
In another instance the board refused to sue a local contractor who did not perform as agreed. The “elephant” was that the board didn’t think that legally challenging a local person was appropriate, an issue raised by an influential director. However, nobody informed the group that in being “nice guys,” they could become legally liable, if somebody became injured as a result of their inaction.
Over the years, I have observed many boards with elephants around that have caused significant problems to a nonprofit organization. Some include:
• Selecting a board chair on the basis of personal appearance and personality instead of managerial and organizational competence. Be certain to vet the experience and potential of candidates carefully. Beside working background (accounting, marketing, human resources, etc.), seek harder to define characteristics such as leadership, critical thinking ability, and position flexibility.
• Failure to delegate sufficient managerial responsibility to the CEO because the board has enjoyed micromanagement activities for decades. To make a change, make certain new directors recognize the problem, and they eventually are willing to take action to alleviate the problem. Example: One board refused to share its latest strategic plan with it newly appointed ED.
• Engaging a weak local CEO because the board wanted to avoid moving expenses. Be certain that local candidates are vetted as carefully as others and that costs of relocation are not the prime reason for their selection.
• Be certain that the board is not “rubber-stamping” proposals of a strong director or CEO. Where major failures occur, be certain that the board or outside counsel determines the causes by conducting a postmortem analysis.
Retaining an ED who is only focusing on the status quo and “minding the store.” The internal accounting systems, human resources and results are all more than adequate. But they are far below what can be done for clients if current and/or potential resources were creatively employed.
* A substantial portion of the board is not reasonably familiar with fund accounting or able to recognize financial “red flags.” Example: One CFO kept delaying the submission of an accounting accounts aging report for over a year. He was carrying as substantial number of noncollectable accounts as an asset. It required the nonprofit to hire high-priced forensic accountants to straighten out the mess. The CEO & CFO were fired, but the board that was also to be blamed for being “nice guys,” and it remained in place. If the organization has gone bankrupt, I would guess that the secretary-of-state would have summarily removed part or all of the board, a reputation loss for all. The board has an obligation to assure stakeholders that the CFO’s knowledge is up to date and to make certain the CEO takes action on obvious “red flags”.
* Inadequate vetting processes that take directors’ time, especially in relation to family and friends of current directors. Example: Accepting a single reference check, such as comments from the candidate’s spouse. This actually happened, and the nominations committee made light of the action.
What can be done about the elephant in the boardroom?
Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet to use, no pun intended! These types of circumstances seem to be in the DNA of volunteers who traditionally avoid any form of conflict, which will impinge upon their personal time or cause conflict with other directors. A cultural change is required to recruit board members who understand director responsibilities, or are willing to learn about them on the job. I have seen a wide variety of directors such, as ministers and social workers, successfully meet the challenges related to this type of the board learning. Most importantly, never underestimate the power of culture when major changes are being considered.
In the meantime, don’t be afraid to ask naive question which forces all to question assumptions, as in Why are we doing the particular thing? Have we really thought it through and considered other possibilities? http://bit.ly/1eNKgtw
Directors need to have passion for the organization’s mission. However, they also need to have the prudence to help the nonprofit board perform with professionalism.
*Eugene Fram, Professor Emeritus at Saunders College of Business, Rochester Institute of Technology
Dans ce billet, je fais référence à un très bon article de Richard Leblanc, paru récemment dans CanadianBusiness.com, qui met l’accent sur la sensibilisation du Conseil à l’importance accrue du contrôle interne dans les OBNL.
L’auteur donne quelques bons exemples d’organisations où le contrôle interne a été défaillant et il montre que les OBNL sont particulièrement vulnérables à des malversations, surtout lorsque l’on sait que le contrôle interne est à peu près inexistant !
C’est la responsabilité du conseil d’administration de s’assurer que les bons contrôles sont en place. L’intérêt public l’exige !
« Non-profit and charitable organizations have stretched resources, which makes them particularly vulnerable to fraudsters. The Salvation Army is currently going through such a situation after a whistleblower informed the organization that $2 million in donated toys had disappeared from—or wasn’t delivered to—their main warehouse in north Toronto over roughly two years ».
Voici un article très pertinent publié sur le Forum en gouvernance du Harvard Law School par Peter Cziraki, professeur d’économie à l’Université de Toronto, qui porte sur un sujet assez mal connu : la nature des transactions effectuées par des personnes initiées (internes à l’organisation) sur la valeur future de l’entreprise.
La recherche de l’auteur porte sur deux types de transactions : (1) le rachat d’actions par l’entreprise et (2) l’offre d’achat d’actions au public.
En résumé, les résultats montrent que les initiés ont tendance à acheter plus d’actions avant la période de rachat d’action par l’entreprise. Ils ont également tendance à vendre davantage avant la période d’offre de vente par leur entreprise.
Le chercheur conclut que non seulement les transactions d’initiés sont indicatives de la valeur future de l’entreprise, mais aussi que les intérêts des initiés sont en congruence avec les décisions de leur entreprise.
Pour les personnes intéressées à connaître davantage la méthodologie de l’étude, je les invite à lire l’article ci-dessous.
The evidence that share repurchases and seasoned equity offers (SEOs) contain value-relevant information is extensive in the corporate finance literature. In addition, we also know that insider trading is informative about future firm value. What is less clear is how trading by firms’ insiders prior to corporate events interacts with firms’ actions and whether this interaction contains additional value-relevant information. In our paper, What Do Insiders Know? Evidence from Insider Trading Around Share Repurchases and SEOs, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we examine the information contained in insider trades prior to open market share repurchases and seasoned equity offerings using a comprehensive sample of over 4,300 repurchase and nearly 1,800 SEO announcements.
We find that insiders tend to “put their money where their mouth is.” They buy more before repurchases and sell more before SEOs. In particular, there is a sizable increase in insiders’ net buying in the months before a repurchase announcement, equal to 13% of the standard deviation of a measure of net insider trading. There is a similarly large decrease in insiders’ net buying in the months before an SEO announcement, equal to 40% of the standard deviation of the same measure of net insider trading.
Next, we show that insiders’ actions prior to announcements of repurchases and SEOs influence the market’s perception of these events. More insider buying and less insider selling prior to share repurchases is associated with larger positive announcement returns. Similarly, more net buying by insiders before SEOs is associated with less negative announcement returns. A one-standard-deviation increase in pre-event abnormal net insider purchases is associated with an increase of around 80 basis points in abnormal returns measured over the three-day period around repurchase announcements. Similarly, a one-standard-deviation increase in abnormal net insider purchases prior to SEOs is associated with abnormal announcement returns that are 45 basis points higher. These numbers are substantial relative to the average announcement returns of 2.1% in the case of repurchases and -2.6% in the case of SEOs.
Our results also indicate that the market does not immediately absorb all the information in insider trading prior to repurchase announcements. For repurchases, the tercile of firms with the highest insider net purchases prior to the event outperforms firms with the lowest insider net purchases by six percentage points in following one year. On the other hand, the market seems to incorporate the information contained in pre-SEO insider trading fast—there is no evidence of a positive association between pre-SEO insider trading and post-SEO long-term returns.
We design our empirical analysis to ensure that these results can be attributed to the joint signal in insider trading and event announcements. In particular, we examine announcement returns relative to returns of firms that have similar characteristics and exhibit comparable insider trading patterns, but do not engage in share repurchase or SEO. This matched-firm evidence demonstrates that there are complementarities between value-relevant information contained in insider trading prior to SEOs and repurchases on one hand and the information in these event announcements on the other hand. We find that the relation between insider trading and future returns is twice as strong around repurchases as it is at other times.
Finally, we analyze why insider trading around repurchases and SEOs is informative for future returns; or what do insiders know that outside investors do not know? We investigate the types of information that insiders seem to possess and convey to the market. Insiders buy more (sell less) prior to repurchases (SEOs) when expected future operating performance is better. For example, the average change in the return on assets in the three years following repurchase announcements is 1.5-1.6 percentage points higher for repurchases belonging to the top tercile of insider net buying than for those belonging to the bottom tercile. The respective figures are 1.0-1.4 percentage points for the case of pre-SEO insider net buying. We also find highly statistically and economically significant differences in changes in risk and cost of capital following repurchases between firms characterized by relatively high net insider purchases and those with low net insider purchases. Using the Fama-French (1997) model as the benchmark, the reduction in post-repurchase cost of capital is 1.1-1.2 percentage points larger within the tercile of repurchases with the most insider net buying than within the tercile with the least insider net buying. This is not the case for SEOs: pre-SEO insider trading does not seem to be negatively associated with post-SEO risk and cost of capital.
In addition, our results suggest that large part of the information contained in insider trading is not about investor sentiment and insiders’ desire to trade against it. In most cases, the information contained in pre-event insider trading does not differ significantly between subsamples of firms sorted by a measure of relative misvaluation.
Overall, our findings suggest that corporate insiders’ personal investment decisions tend to be consistent with their firms’ actions: Insiders sell more on average prior to SEOs and they sell less on average prior to open market repurchases. Investors seem to incorporate the information in insider trading prior to corporate events when forming reactions to event announcements, although the speed with which the market incorporates the information in pre-event insider trading varies across events. The information that insiders trade on prior to corporate events seems to be about future changes in operating performance and, in the case of repurchases, about future changes in the cost of capital. Altogether, it seems that insiders use their superior information about their firm’s fundamentals (about operating performance and changes in risk) to optimize their trades before corporate events.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, l’extrait d’une lettre que Warren Buffett fait parvenir annuellement à tous les actionnaires de Berkshire Hathaway. Les énoncés de cette lettre sont issus des rapports annuels de la société.
Cette lettre réfère aux orientations de l’entreprise eu égard à la sélection des administrateurs siégeant au conseil d’administration de Berkshire Hathaway, mais aussi, je suppose, aux nombreux conseils d’administration dans lesquels la société est représentée. Quels enseignements peut-on retirer de l’approche Berkshire, et qui peut expliquer, en partie, le succès phénoménal de cette entreprise ?
Ce que le comité de sélection recherche, ce sont des administrateurs foncièrement indépendants, c’est-à-dire des personnes qui ont la volonté, l’expérience et les compétences pour poser les questions clés aux membres de la direction. Selon Buffett la vraie indépendance est très rare.
Le secret pour assurer cette indépendance est de choisir des personnes dont les intérêts sont alignés sur les intérêts supérieurs des actionnaires, et solidement ancrés dans la détention d’une partie significative de l’actionnariat (pas d’options ou d’unités d’action avec restriction ou différées).
Également, la rémunération des administrateurs de Berkshire est minimale ; selon la doctrine Buffett, aucun administrateur ne devrait compter sur une rémunération susceptible de constituer une part importante de ses revenus et ainsi de compromettre son indépendance (on parle ici de rémunérations globales de l’ordre de 250 000 $ et plus…).
La sélection des administrateurs repose donc sur quatre critères fondamentaux : (1) l’orientation propriétaire (2) l’expérience et la connaissance des affaires (3) l’intérêt pour l’entreprise et (4) l’indépendance complète vis-à-vis du management.
La lettre se termine par ce propos empreint de sagesse… et de simplicité.
At Berkshire, we are in thespecialized activity of running a business well, and therefore we seek businessjudgment.
Je suis reconnaissant à Henry D. Wolfe, investisseur privé dans le capital de risque et dans les fonds LBO, pour avoir partagé cette lettre sur LinkedIn.
Bonne lecture !
Warren Buffett: Annual Letter Comments Regarding the Selection of Corporate Directors
True independence – meaning the willingness to challenge a forceful CEO when something is wrong or foolish – is an enormously valuable trait in a director. It is also rare. The place to look for it is amonghigh-grade people whose interests are in line with those of rank-and-file shareholders – and are inline in a very big way.
We’ve made that search at Berkshire. We now have eleven directors and each of them, combined with members of their families, owns more than $4 million of Berkshire stock. Moreover, all have held major stakes in Berkshire for many years. In the case of six of the eleven, family ownership amounts to at least hundreds of millions and dates back at least three decades. All eleven directors purchased their holdingsin the market just as you did; we’ve never passed out options or restricted shares. Charlie and I lovesuch honest-to-God ownership. After all, who ever washes a rental car?
In addition, director fees at Berkshire are nominal (as my son, Howard, periodically reminds me). Thus, the upside from Berkshire for all eleven is proportionately the same as the upside for any Berkshire shareholder. And it always will be…
The bottom line for our directors: You win, they win big; you lose, they lose big. Our approach might be called owner-capitalism. We know of no better way to engender true independence. (This structure does not guarantee perfect behavior, however: I’ve sat on boards of companies in which Berkshire had huge stakes and remained silent as questionable proposals were rubber-stamped.)
In addition to being independent, directors should have business savvy, a shareholder orientation and a genuine interest in the company. The rarest of these qualities is business savvy – and if it is lacking, the other two are of little help. Many people who are smart, articulate and admired have no real understanding of business. That’s no sin; they may shine elsewhere. But they don’t belong on corporate boards.
In selecting a new director, we were guided by our long-standing criteria, which are that board members be owner-oriented, business-savvy, interested and truly independent. I say “truly” because many directors who are now deemed independent by various authorities and observers are far from that, relying heavily as they do on directors’ fees to maintain their standard of living. These payments, which come in many forms, often range between $150,000 and $250,000 annually, compensation that may approach or even exceed all other income of the “independent” director. And – surprise, surprise – director compensation has soared in recent years, pushed up by recommendations from corporate America’s favorite consultant, Ratchet, Ratchet and Bingo. (The name may be phony, but the action it conveys is not.)
Charlie and I believe our four criteria are essential if directors are to do their job – which, by law, is to faithfully represent owners. Yet these criteria are usually ignored. Instead, consultants and CEOs seeking board candidates will often say, “We’re looking for a woman,” or “a Hispanic,” or “someone from abroad,” or what have you. It sometimes sounds as if the mission is to stock Noah’s ark. Over the years I’ve been queried many times about potential directors and have yet to hear anyone ask, “Does he think like an intelligent owner?”
The questions I instead get would sound ridiculous to someone seeking candidates for, say, a football team, or an arbitration panel or a military command. In those cases, the selectors would look for people who had the specific talents and attitudes that were required for a specialized job. At Berkshire, we are in thespecialized activity of running a business well, and therefore we seek businessjudgment.
L’organisation Corporate Practice Commentatorvient de publier la liste des meilleurs articles en gouvernance, plus précisément ceux qui concernent le marché des actions.
La sélection a été faite par les professeurs qui se spécialisent en droit corporatif. Cette année plus de 540 articles ont été analysés.
La liste inclut trois articles de la Faculté du Harvard Law School issus du programme en gouvernance corporative dont Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates et Jesse Fried font partie.
Voici la liste en ordre alphabétique.
Bonne recherche !
Les dix articles américains les plus marquants en gouvernance corporative en 2015
Bartlett, Robert P. III. Do Institutional Investors Value the Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action? Evidence from Investors’ Trading Behavior following Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. 44 J. Legal Stud. 183-227 (2015).
Bebchuk, Lucian, Alon Brav and Wei Jiang. The Long-term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism. 115 Colum. L. Rev. 1085-1155 (2015).
Bratton, William W. and Michael L. Wachter. Bankers and Chancellors. 93 Tex. L. Rev. 1-84 (2014).
Cain, Matthew D. and Steven Davidoff Solomon. A Great Game: The Dynamics of State Competition and Litigation. 100 Iowa L. Rev. 465-500 (2015).
Casey, Anthony J. The New Corporate Web: Tailored Entity Partitions and Creditors’ Selective Enforcement. 124 Yale L. J. 2680-2744 (2015).
Coates, John C. IV. Cost-benefit Analysis of Financial Regulation: Case Studies and Implications. 124 Yale L .J. 882-1011 (2015).
Edelman, Paul H., Randall S. Thomas and Robert B. Thompson. Shareholder Voting in an Age of Intermediary Capitalism. 87 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1359-1434 (2014).
Fisch, Jill E., Sean J. Griffith and Steven Davidoff Solomon. Confronting the Peppercorn Settlement in Merger Litigation: An Empirical Analysis and a Proposal for Reform. 93 Tex. L. Rev. 557-624 (2015).
Fried, Jesse M. The Uneasy Case for Favoring Long-term Shareholders. 124 Yale L. J. 1554-1627 (2015).
Judge, Kathryn. Intermediary Influence. 82 U. Chi. L. Rev. 573-642 (2015).
Voici une liste des billets en gouvernance les plus populaires publiés sur mon blogue au premier trimestre de 2016.
Cette liste de 15 billets constitue, en quelque sorte, un sondage de l’intérêt manifesté par des milliers de personnes sur différents thèmes de la gouvernance des sociétés. On y retrouve des points de vue bien étayés sur des sujets d’actualité relatifs aux conseils d’administration.
Que retrouve-t-on dans ce blogue et quels en sont les objectifs?
Ce blogue fait l’inventaire des documents les plus pertinents et les plus récents en gouvernance des entreprises. La sélection des billets est le résultat d’une veille assidue des articles de revue, des blogues et des sites web dans le domaine de la gouvernance, des publications scientifiques et professionnelles, des études et autres rapports portant sur la gouvernance des sociétés, au Canada et dans d’autres pays, notamment aux États-Unis, au Royaume-Uni, en France, en Europe, et en Australie.
Je fais un choix parmi l’ensemble des publications récentes et pertinentes et je commente brièvement la publication. L’objectif de ce blogue est d’être la référence en matière de documentation en gouvernance dans le monde francophone, en fournissant au lecteur une mine de renseignements récents (les billets) ainsi qu’un outil de recherche simple et facile à utiliser pour répertorier les publications en fonction des catégories les plus pertinentes.
Quelques statistiques à propos du blogue Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé
Ce blogue a été initié le 15 juillet 2011 et, à date, il a accueilli plus de 185000 visiteurs. Le blogue a progressé de manière tout à fait remarquable et, au30 avril 2016, il était fréquenté pardes milliers devisiteurs par mois. Depuis le début,j’aiœuvré à la publication de 1355billets.
En 2016, j’estime qu’environ 5000 personnes par mois visiteront le blogue afin de s’informer sur diverses questions de gouvernance. À ce rythme, on peut penser qu’environ 60000 personnesvisiteront le site du blogue en 2016.
On note que 80 % des billets sont partagés par l’intermédiaire de différents moteurs de recherche et 20 % par LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook et Tumblr.
Voici un aperçu du nombre de visiteurs par pays :
Canada (64 %)
France, Suisse, Belgique (20 %)
Maghreb [Maroc, Tunisie, Algérie] (5 %)
Autres pays de l’Union européenne (3 %)
États-Unis [3 %]
Autres pays de provenance (5 %)
En 2014, le blogue Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé a été inscrit dans deux catégories distinctes du concours canadien Made in Blog [MiB Awards] : Business et Marketing et médias sociaux. Le blogue a été retenu parmi les dix [10] finalistes à l’échelle canadienne dans chacune de ces catégories, le seul en gouvernance. Il n’y avait pas de concours en 2015.
Vos commentaires sont toujours grandement appréciés. Je réponds toujours à ceux-ci.
N.B. Vous pouvez vous inscrire ou faire des recherches en allant au bas de cette page.
Bonne lecture !
Voici les Tops 15 du premier trimestre de 2016 du blogue en gouvernance
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 