Aujourd’hui, je partage avec vous une belle histoire de succession d’une entreprise familiale mondialement connue : Heineken.
Ce cas d’entreprise m’a été proposé par Paul Michaud, un administrateur de sociétés certifié (ASC), une personne expérimentée dans les situations de transferts d’entreprises familiales.
Comme Paul le mentionne : « C’est un cas intéressant ! Le bonhomme est un hybride entre un entrepreneur et un CEO, la fille entre la mère-au-foyer et CEO ».
Je vous invite donc à lire ce cas de relève d’entreprise familiale publié par Patricia Sellers dans Fortune.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, quelques certaines conclusions tirées du cas. C’est une belle lecture du temps des Fêtes !
For anyone who oversees a family business, passing it on to the next generation is the ultimate challenge of leadership. “If we get that wrong, we’ve wasted our energy on all that we’ve built,” says Michel de Carvalho, the investment banker husband of Charlene Heineken.
The de Carvalho family (from left): Alexander, Michel, Charlene, Louisa, Charles, Sophie, and Isabel
Heineken has a stock market value of $44 billion, and Charlene aims to pass on her 25% ownership stake and control of the voting shares more prudently than her father, Freddy Heineken, did to her. So she and Michel have been diligently studying the best practices of passing on a family business. No matter the size of a dynasty, certain basic rules apply.
CHOOSE ONE.
Other billionaire owners of family businesses have advised the de Carvalhos, regardless of how they divvy up the wealth, to select one of their five children to take control of the company. “But Charlene and I are not yet convinced that we could not have an odd number, perhaps three,” admits Michel, noting that ownership may be a lonely job for one heir. “Had Charlene not been married to someone who has a strong interest in the business, it would have been a terrible burden.”
TEST THE CHILDREN.
Don’t trap them,” says Byron Trott, a former Goldman Sachs banker whose merchant bank, BDT & Co., invests in and advises closely held companies. “Allow them to find their passion.” Trott admires the way the de Carvalhos are getting their five children to define their interests, whether philanthropic, arts-related, or corporate. Meanwhile, they’re preparing eldest son Alexander, who works in private equity, to inherit control of Heineken. “He’s on the board. He’s working in the financial industry,” notes Trott. “He understands the rigor of opting in.”
PICK STRONG ADVISERS.
Freddy Heineken stocked his board with yes men, which weakened the company before -Charlene inherited control in 2002. Charlene and Michel’s advice to Alexander or whoever among their children eventually takes control: “Surround yourself with the best possible people who are not yes men and sycophants. You want people who express doubt.”
HOLD ON.
Family control of a business protects management from “the short-term whims of Wall Street,” enabling it to focus on long-term growth, says Trott. “These companies tend to outperform the market over long periods of time.” Trott advises the de Carvalhos: “Keep doing what you’re doing, because you’re doing it very well.” —P.S.
Le Dr Eugene Fram a récemment publié un article pertinent qui fait l’apologie des OBNL, lesquelles doivent accomplir leurs missions en dépit de conditions sous-optimales.
L’article expose une série de caractéristiques des OBNL qui, trop souvent, contribuent à sous-estimer leur œuvre et qui teintent les perceptions du public envers celles-ci.
Parmi les particularités inhérentes à plusieurs OBNL, on retrouve souvent des éléments qui servent à justifier des lacunes de gouvernance; ces indices de dysfonction influent sur la perception des donateurs éventuels :
La plupart des organisations sont de très petites tailles;
Le défi de la gestion des bénévoles est très grand;
Les locaux et les équipements sont souvent peu attrayants;
Les relations entre le CA et la direction sont perçues comme immatures;
Les parties prenantes, notamment les donateurs, sont souvent mal informés de la distribution aux bénéficiaires, contribuant ainsi à créer l’impression qu’ils sont à la merci de la direction;
Les relations avec le CA sont souvent inhabituelles … en ce sens que les administrateurs ont tendance à s’immiscer régulièrement dans les activités des gestionnaires.
L’article tente de décrire ce qui peut être fait pour contrer ces perceptions.
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum 1071 Fifth Avenue (at 89th Street) New York, NY
Judging from the vast literature on dysfunctional nonprofit boards and organizations (my own posts included!) one might conclude that the majority of nonprofits are struggling, incompetent and/or in crisis. I argue that this is not the case. Decades of experience lead me to believe that nonprofits have the same functional variables as profit making organizations—dysfunctional at times like Target or GM; efficient like Apple or Whole Foods; adaptable like Del Monte and Cisco. Everybody doesn’t get it right all the time.
Perceptions become reality to those who are quick to embrace popular labels such as the overused term, “dysfunctional.” Obviously, in the case of nonprofits, such perceptions are harmful. Once evaluated in this way the stigma persists and can seriously reduce the level of support that is so critical to the work of these organizations.
What characteristics color these perceptions?
• Small Organizations: About one-third of the charitable nonprofits have gross receipts under $25,000 a year. At that level the vast majority can’t employ more than one full-time person, overworking those with job responsibilities that can’t be delegated. While small organization can’t do much to improve the misperceptions about nonprofit dysfunctions, more mature ones can take deliberate steps over time.
• The Volunteer Challenge: A large cadre of board and operational volunteers take time to assist struggling charities, which give the organizations appearances of nonprofit always being on the edge or existence. Many outsiders are unaware that those on management and staff are highly competent people who accept this employment condition because they know how their work can positively impact the lives of clients.
• Facilities: Nonprofit facilities are often second rate and appear highly dysfunctional. Client needs, not facilities, are primary to the board, management and staff.
• Board Relationships: Many relationships between the board and management can be similar to that of a “parent-child” one. In the words of one nonprofit director, “We tell the executive director exactly what to do.”
• Stakeholders: They often do not appreciate the tremendous impacts that the staff can have. Example: Donors often don’t have contact with those who directly benefit.
• Board Dysfunctions: A root cause of the perception may be due to a dysfunctional board trying to resolve internal conflicts, and there is little the management and staff can do about it. Valiant managements and staffs can sometimes achieve productive impacts without board support.
What can be done?
Competency & Relationships: I have encountered many CEOs who have more management expertise than many of their board members who are professors, accountants or physician, etc. While I appreciated that dealing with volunteer directors may involve working with some persons with outsized egos, the CEO must strive to portray himself as a competent manager. The positive outcome is that the CEO is viewed as a peer working with the board, not under the board.
Many staff persons figuratively stand ten feet tall for what they accomplish on behalf of clients.. The CEO has an obligation to make sure that the stories about outstanding staff personnel are well acknowledged, so that stakeholders know about them. This takes more then simple public relations events. It involves highlighting and rewarding those who are highly productive.
Facilities: I understand the tradeoff between expenditures for facilities versus expenditures for clients. Having first class facilities may even hinder achieving a mission if donors perceive their donations are being used for plush facilities. At the least, the nonprofit needs to have an uncluttered area for board meetings and events with outside stakeholders.
Implications: Many suggest that a nonprofit organization being perceived as dysfunctional is not an important issue, as long as mission objectives and impacts are achieved. I argue that more resources for clients could be developed if the perception is not a diminished one. Some can equate dysfunction with being inefficient. In addition, a positive perception might make it easier to attract more qualified board members, management and staff.
Voici une étude très intéressante conduite par Kobi Kastiel, fellow à la Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance. La publication aura lieu en janvier 2015, mais le sommaire présenté ici résume bien le sens de celle-ci.
L’auteur montre que les compagnies qui ont un actionnaire de contrôle ont plus tendance à offrir des rémunérations « excessives » au premier dirigeant (PCD), qui lui, en retour, a tendance à s’entourer de dirigeants très bien payés.
L’étude explique que les actionnaires de contrôle paient plus pour s’assurer de la loyauté de la direction et maximiser les bénéfices qui leurs reviennent. L’auteur avance plusieurs autres raisons qui expliquent cette situation.
Le phénomène est tellement répandu dans ce type de compagnie que les recommandations des firmes de conseil en votation (telles que ISS), eu égard au « Say on Pay », devraient être suivies afin de neutraliser l’effet des actionnaires dominants qui ont l’habitude d’accepter des « packages » de rétribution beaucoup trop généreux, lesquels ne sont pas dans l’intérêt de tous les actionnaires …
L’article qui paraîtra dans Indiana Law Journal aura sûrement un impact sur les motivations derrières les rémunérations jugées excessives par beaucoup d’experts en gouvernance.
More than a decade ago, Professors Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried published the seminal work on the role and significance of managerial power theory in executive compensation. Their work cultivated a vivid debate on executive compensation in companies with dispersed ownership. The discourse on the optimality of executive pay in controlled companies, however, has been more monolithic. Conventional wisdom among corporate law theorists has long suggested that the presence of a controlling shareholder should alleviate the problem of managerial opportunism because such a controller has both the power and incentives to curb excessive executive pay.
My Article, Executive Compensation in Controlled Companies, forthcoming in the Indiana Law Journal, challenges that common understanding by proposing a different view that is based on an agency problem paradigm, and by presenting a comprehensive framework for understanding the relationship between concentrated ownership and executive pay. On the theoretical level, the Article shows that controlling shareholders often have incentives to overpay professional managers instead of having an arm’s-length contract with them, and therefore it suggests that compensation practices in a large number of controlled companies may have their own pathologies.
To begin with, controllers may wish to overpay managers in order to maximize their consumption of private benefits, while providing professional managers with a premium for their “loyalty” and for colluding with tunneling activities. This tendency is further aggravated by the use of control-enhancing mechanisms, such as dual-class share structures, which distort controllers’ monitoring incentives due to the wedge it creates between controllers’ cash flow rights and control rights. In addition, certain controllers, such as second generation controllers, could be “weak” due to their lack of experience, motivation or talent, and thus are more easily captured by professional CEOs. Controllers could also be biased due to their longstanding professional and social relationship with professional managers, and cannot be expected to exercise an impartial influence over the formulation of compensation contracts. This alternative view presented in the Article could also help explain recent puzzling phenomena such as the overly generous pay patterns in Viacom or other controlled companies, as well as the rise in say-on-pay rules in countries with concentrated ownership (as observed in a recent study by Thomas & Van der Elst).
On the empirical level, the Article questions conventional beliefs on executive pay by reviewing the recommendations on say-on-pay votes of Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (ISS), the leading and most influential proxy advisory firm in the United States. In determining whether to recommend shareholders to vote against a management say-on-pay proposal, ISS examines the company’s pay-for-performance alignment compared to peer group alignment over a sustained period, as well as the use of problematic pay practices. This, in turn, makes the ISS recommendation a useful tool for determining whether a pay package is accurately calibrated to maximize shareholder value.
The data presented in the Article, which is based on the review of ISS recommendations for say-on-pay votes at companies included in the Russell 3000 Index during the 2011 and the 2012 proxy seasons, provides an indication that the compensation packages of professional managers in controlled companies appears to be a bigger problem than initially predicted. In particular, it shows that a controlled company managed by a professional CEO has a slightly higher likelihood to receive a negative recommendation than a widely held company. This result remains substantially similar and statistically significant even when controlling for firms’ market value and industry, or when neutralizing the effect of controllers who are also the CEOs of their firms.
Finally, on the normative level, the Article shows that a U.S. style say-on-pay rule, which requires a non-binding vote by the shareholders as a whole, is unlikely to mitigate the agency problem in determining executive compensation in controlled companies. Since controlling shareholders exercise significant control over the directors’ election process, receiving a failed say-on-pay vote and facing a risk of a withhold vote recommendation for the election of certain directors is unlikely to have any effect on controllers’ ability to elect their directors. And when controllers face no sanctions for failing their say-on-pay votes, they are more likely to ignore shareholders’ concerns, and to use their voting power to approve compensation packages that are suboptimal for other shareholders. The Article, therefore, calls for a new regulatory approach: re-conceptualize the pay of professional managers in controlled companies as an indirect self-dealing transaction and subject it to the applicable rules that regulate conflicted transactions.
Voici le condensé d’un article publié par Deloitte en 2011 et que j’ai relayé à mes premiers abonnés au début de la création de mon blogue.
En revisitant mes billets, j’ai été en mesure de constater que plusieurs parutions étaient encore d’une grande pertinence. Ainsi, afin de revenir sur mes débuts comme blogueur, je vous présente un document de la firme Deloitte qui énumère dix (10) activités que les conseils d’administration doivent éviter de faire.
Les suggestions sont toujours aussi d’actualité. Bonne relecture !
Avoid presentation overload
Presentations should not dominate board meetings. If your board meetings consist of a scripted agenda packed with one presentation after another, there may not be sufficient time for substantive discussions. The majority of board meetings should be focused on candid dialogue about the critical strategic issues facing the company. The advance meeting materials should comprise information that provides the basis for the discussions held during the meeting. Management should feel confident that the board will read these pre-meeting materials, and the board must commit an adequate amount of time in advance of the meeting to do so.
Avoid understating the importance of compliance
There is no room for a culture of complacency when it comes to compliance with laws and regulations. As noted in the Deloitte publication
Avoid postponing the CEO succession discussion
CEO succession planning is one of the primary roles of the board. With the changing governance landscape and new and proposed regulations, the board has a full agenda these days. However, it is important to occasionally take a step back to ensure the board is addressing this important responsibility. During this time of rebuilding and prior to the implementation of new regulations, boards should assess where time is being spent and perhaps redirect focus on succession.
It is important to note that the succession planning process is continual and doesn’t end when a new CEO is selected. As the company evolves, its needs change, as do the skills required of the leadership team. The board needs to ensure that a leadership pipeline is developed and that its members have ample opportunity to connect with the next generation of leaders.
Avoid the trap of homogeneity
The topic of board composition and having the « right » people on the board continues to receive much attention. The SEC has proposed rules that would require more disclosure about director qualifications, including what makes each director qualified to participate on certain board committees. The shift to independent board members facilitated a move away from a « friends on the board » approach to a new mix. However, the board needs to assess whether this new mix translates into a positive and productive board dynamic. Boards should take a closer look at the expertise, experience and other qualities of each member to ensure the board that can provide the right expertise. Diversity of thought provides the perspectives needed to effectively address critical topics, which can contribute to greater productivity and ultimately a stronger board.
Avoid excessive short-term focus
Perpetual existence is one of the principal reasons for the initial development of a corporation. However, recent history offers many examples of modern corporate entities managing to reach short-term results at the expense of long-term prosperity. The board can demonstrate its leadership by being the voice of reason and openly discussing the sustainability of strategic initiatives. This can result in a well-governed company with a greater chance of achieving long-term, sustainable success.
Avoid approvals if you don’t understand the issue
Complex issues can have significant implications for the survival of an organization. It is up to directors to make sure that they understand issues that can alter the future of an enterprise before a vote is taken. This doesn’t require dissecting every detail, but it should consist of a thorough investigation and assessment of the risks and rewards of proposed transactions. If you don’t adequately understand the issue, ask for more education from management or external experts. It comes down to being able to ask the tough questions of management and probing further if things do not make sense. Consensus doesn’t mean going along with the crowd. True consensus results from a thorough debate and airing of the issues before the board, resulting in a more informed vote by directors.
Avoid discounting the value of experience
As a director, it is important to recognize the value that your experience can bring to the issues at hand. Good governance doesn’t mean checking all the right boxes. Rather, it is bringing together the diverse skills and experiences of each director to lead the company through challenges. Directors can provide greater insight by being ‘situationally aware’ when evaluating events and courses of action to take. Just as the captain of a ship needs to understand the various environmental factors that influence navigation, boards need to understand the external risks that may have an impact on the navigation of the company. Consider the context of the current issue, how it is similar to, or different from, previous experiences, what alternatives could be considered, and how outside forces may impede a successful outcome. Don’t discount the value of experience just because it was gained outside the boardroom.
Avoid stepping over the line into management’s role
A board that makes management decisions will find it difficult to hold the CEO accountable for the outcome. A director’s role is to oversee the efforts of management rather than stepping into management’s shoes. Directors must make a concentrated effort to ensure that they have clarity on management’s role, which is to operate the company. The distinction between the board and management is often blurred by directors who forget that they are not charged with running the day-to-day operations of an enterprise. This doesn’t prevent a director from getting into the details of an issue facing the company, but it does mean that directors should avoid stepping over the line.
Avoid ignoring shareholders
A company’s shareholders are among the most important and potentially vocal constituents of the enterprise. Concerns can sometimes be addressed by providing shareholders an audience with the board to air their concerns. Historically, compliance with the SEC Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD) rules has been perceived as a hindrance to directors engaging in shareholder dialogue and meetings. As outlined in the Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance policy briefing.
Avoid a bias to risk aversion
With the recent focus on excessive risk-taking and its impact on the credit crisis, there is concern that companies and boards may become risk-averse.
Voici un article très intéressant de Elliot S. Schreiber* paru sur le blogue de Schreiber | Paris récemment. L’auteur pose une question cruciale pour mieux comprendre la nature et la priorité des interventions organisationnelles.
À quoi le management et le C.A. doivent-ils accorder le plus d’attention : À stratégie ou à la culture de l’organisation ?
L’auteur affirme que la culture, étant l’ADN de l’entreprise, devrait se situer en premier, … avant la stratégie !
Le bref article présenté ci-dessous pose deux questions fondamentales pour connaître si l’entreprise a une culture appropriée :
(1) Does it cost us the same, more or less than competitors to recruit and retain top talent ?
(2) Are customers happy with the relationship they have with our company versus our competition ?
If it costs you more to recruit and retain your best talent or if customers believe that competitors are easier to deal with, you have cultural issues that need to be dealt with. We can guarantee that if you do not, you will not execute your strategy successfully, no matter what else you do.
Ce point de vue correspond-il à votre réalité ? Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus. Bonne lecture !
Peter Drucker famously stated “culture eats strategy for breakfast”. A great quote no doubt and quite right, but it still raises the question – one that we recently got from a board member at a client organization – “which should we work on first, strategy or culture”?
Consider the following; you are driving a boat. You want to head east, but every time you turn the wheel the boat goes south. In this analogy, the course direction is strategy; the boat’s rudder is culture. They are not in synch. No matter how hard you turn the wheel, the rudder will win. That is what Drucker meant.
Every organization has a culture, whether it was intentionally developed or not. This culture gets built over time by the personalities and principles of the leaders, as well as by rewards, incentives, processes and procedures that let people know what really is valued in the company.
Culture is defined as “the way we do things around here every day and allow them to be done”. Employees look to their leaders to determine what behaviors are truly values, as well as to the rewards, incentives, processes and procedures that channel behaviors.
Executives we work with often get confused about culture, thinking that they need to duplicate the companies that are written up in publications as having the best cultures. We all know the ones in these listings. They are the ones with skate ramps, Friday beer parties, and day care centers. All these things are nice, but there is no need to duplicate these unless you are attempting to recruit the same employees and create the same products and services. No two companies, even those in the same market segment, need to have the same culture.
We know from discussions with other consultants and business executives that there are many who strongly believe that culture comes first. What they suggest is that since culture is there—it is the DNA of the company—it comes before strategy. It may be first in historical order, but that is not what matters. You don’t need pool tables and skate ramps like Google to have a good culture. What matters with culture is whether or not it drives or undermines value creation, which comes from the successful interaction of employees and customers.
…..
____________________________________
* Elliot S. Schreiber, Ph.D., is the founding Chairman of Schreiber Paris. He has gained a reputation among both corporate executives and academics as one of the world’s most knowledgeable and insightful business and market strategists. Elliot is recognized as an expert in organizational alignment, strategy execution and risk management. He is a co-founder in 2003 of the Directors College, acknowledged as Canada’s « gold standard » for director education.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un excellent article de John C. Wilcox*, président de Sodali, paru dans The Conference Board Governance Center Blog, sur la problématique de l’engagement des administrateurs avec leur actionnaires. Un sujet hautement d’actualité …
L’auteur affirme que la transparenceest la clé de voute d’une bonne relation entre la direction et les actionnaires activistes. Selon lui, l’engagement est une mesure plutôt réactive parce ce que ce processus de communication avec les actionnaires n’établit pas une base solide à long terme ayant pour effet de prévenir l’activisme.
L’auteur propose plusieurs moyens très utiles pour rendre une organisation plus transparente et plus proactive dans ses communications avec ses actionnaires et avec les parties prenantes.
Une approche misant sur la valeur de la transparence est nécessaire pour assurer une bonne gouvernance. L’article évoque plusieurs moyens concrets pour y arriver en commençant par la clarification des rôles des administrateurs et l’établissement de la nette distinction à faire entre les tâches du CA et celles du management.
Voici les tâches qui relèvent de la responsabilité du conseil d’administration :
« Long-term strategy, company values, culture and “tone at the top”;
Oversight of management and long-term performance;
Accounting principles and the audit process;
Policies relating to ESG and sustainability;
Director nomination, selection and competence;
CEO succession planning;
Board evaluation;
Executive and board compensation;
Risk oversight;
Ethics, conflicts of interest and related-party transactions;
Non-financial performance goals and metrics;
Engagement and communication with shareholders and other constituents »
En fait, le CA doit avoir une voix clairement indépendante de la direction … et se doter des moyens pour l’exprimer.
Je vous invite à lire l’extrait ci-dessous qui résume bien la problématique abordée et à prendre connaissance de l’article qui suggère des moyens concrets pour accroître la transparence.
To demonstrate their effectiveness, corporate boards should increase transparency, provide an annual report of boardroom activities and take charge of their relations with shareholders.
With shareholders continuing to press for ever-deepening levels of engagement, companies must find a way to answer the most basic question of corporate governance: “How effective is the board of directors?” It is a question that can only be answered by the board itself, but it presents directors with a challenge as well as an opportunity. The challenge is to overcome the mindset, habits and perceived risks that have long kept boardroom activities under wraps. The opportunity, on the other hand, is to define governance and strategic issues from the board’s perspective, manage shareholder expectations, take the engagement initiative away from shareholders and reduce the likelihood of activism. Directors should give careful consideration to this opportunity. Over the long term, it will be far better for companies to control the process by which board transparency is achieved rather than waiting for yet again another set of governance reforms that could further erode the board’s authority.
Despite widespread support for board primacy and the board-centric governance model, boardroom transparency and director-shareholder relations are not a priority at most companies. A recent DealBook column in the New York Times described the situation as follows:
“What if lawmakers never spoke to their constituents? Oddly enough, that’s exactly how corporate America operates. Shareholders vote for directors, but the directors rarely, if ever, communicate with them.”
The problem is not limited to corporate America. Opaque boardrooms are a global phenomenon, particularly common in markets where companies are dominated by founding families, control groups, or the state.
The column concludes:
“…[S]ome form of engagement with shareholders – rather than directors simply taking their cues from management – would go a long way toward helping boards work on behalf of all shareholders…”
[Andrew Ross Sorkin, The New York Times, July 21, 2014]
Cues from management are not the only concern. In many global markets the board’s role is broadly defined, requiring directors to balance the competing demands of insiders, resolve conflicts of interest, deal with related-party transactions and juggle competing business and public policy goals in addition to their basic oversight duties. In these markets the need for transparency is even more compelling than in highly regulated markets, such as the UK, the European Union and the USA, where comprehensive legal, disclosure and accounting standards are well established.
Boards are under pressure…
Pressure for greater board transparency and more open communication continues to come from the usual suspects: activist investment funds, hedge funds with a range of long and short-term investment strategies, governance reform professionals, NGOs, shareholder advocacy groups, trade unions, individual shareholder activists, special interest proponents and other adversaries. Proxy advisory firms compound the pressure by providing a global audience for these disputes. When issues of policy are involved, the media and politicians often step in to further amplify the pressure on companies.
Companies have fought defensive rearguard actions against activism, occasionally prevailing in specific campaigns, but ultimately they have had to concede defeat on most policy disputes relating to governance and board accountability. The decade-long evolution of the say-on-pay vote exemplifies this pattern of opposition and retreat.
Despite the chain of losses, the high-volume debate between companies and shareholders about the merits of governance reform continues today: Are corporate governance standards good or bad for companies? Does shareholder activism produce value or destroy value? Should shareholders have more power or less? Are directors sufficiently independent or not? Should corporate governance be director-centric or shareholder-centric? Is chronic short-termism the fault of greedy shareholders, or greedy CEOs, or weak boards, or does it represent the inevitable decline of free-market capitalism, or all of the above? The list of questions goes on and on. The debate has not lessened in intensity, but it has not resolved the questions either. The few answers that have been provided remain largely determined by research methodologies, policy perspectives or the merits of individual cases. The real answer to most of the big questions seems inevitably to be “It depends…”
As 2015 approaches, it remains unclear how much the debate really matters or whether answers to these questions would be helpful to businesses and investors. For individual companies, the answer would seem to be No.
…but institutional investors are under pressure, too.
Today’s governance and regulatory environment is changing rapidly for shareholders and the investment community as well as for companies. In the extended wake of the financial crisis, institutional investors remain under the regulatory microscope. They can no longer claim privileged status or remain exempt from the governance and accountability standards they impose on portfolio companies.
Stewardship codes and new laws in several major markets now require institutional investors to intensify their oversight of portfolio companies and disclose publicly their governance policies, voting practices and engagement activities. These requirements have further led to the development of new means of collective institutional engagement through organizations such as the UK Investors Forum.
Proxy advisory firms, themselves under regulatory and industry pressure to provide less standardized governance reviews as well as more information about the integrity of their research and vote recommendations, are relying much less on their traditional check lists of governance externalities. In response to client demand, they are digging for more detailed information about board effectiveness at individual companies.
The financial crisis awakened the investment community and the general public to the failures that resulted from overreliance on quantitative analysis to evaluate companies’ performance and risk. In response to new rules, institutional investors are now beginning to include intangibles and non-financial performance metrics in their analytical models. This wider lens embraces corporate governance, environmental practices, social policies, ethics, culture, reputation and other non-quantitative elements that are predictive of long-term performance. The terms “ESG” (Environmental, Social, Governance) and “sustainability” have become a form of shorthand for defining this new way of looking holistically at business enterprises. A recently issued Directive on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by the EU Council puts the legal imprimatur on this broader set of data.
The enlarged analytical framework has important implications for companies — and specifically for boards of directors. Responsibility for ESG and sustainability falls squarely on the board. The directors, rather than management, are deemed by shareholders to be answerable for ESG and sustainability.
Investor focus on non-financial criteria is producing some interesting results. In the U.S., the Council of Institutional Investors and its members have taken an approach that involves a carrot rather than a stick. CII has begun publishing periodic reports, based on member surveys and feedback, identifying companies whose disclosure practices exemplify best practice. A February 2014 CII report named six U.S. companies — Coca-Cola, GE, Pfizer, Prudential Financial, Microsoft and Walt Disney — as examples of excellence in disclosure of director qualifications and skills. In September 2014 CII published an additional report on board evaluation practices, citing GE (USA), Potash, Agrium (both Canadian companies), BHP Billiton (Australia), Dunelm (UK) and Randstad Holdings (Netherlands) as examples of excellence. According to deputy director Amy Borrus, CII plans to continue publishing reports on issues deemed important for its members to evaluate board effectiveness.
……
CONCLUSION
Although global corporate governance standards continue to uphold the director-centric model, information about board effectiveness remains fragmentary and inconsistent. Both companies and shareholders would benefit from an annual board narrative and a structured program for directors to communicate and engage with shareholders.
________________________________
*John C. Wilcox is Chairman of Sodali Ltd, a global consultancy providing companies and boards with services relating to corporate governance, shareholder relations, corporate actions and the capital markets. From 2005 to 2008 he served as Senior Vice President and Head of Corporate Governance at TIAA-CREF, one of the world’s largest private pension systems. Prior to joining TIAA-CREF he was chairman of Georgeson & Company, the U.S. proxy and investor relations.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un entretien mené par Patrick Amoux auprès d’Agnès Touraine, présidente de l’Institut Français des Administrateurs (IFA), publié dans le nouvel Economiste.fr, qui fait un excellent bilan de la gouvernance en France depuis 10 ans.
Les actionnaires peuvent lui dire merci … Si leurs représentants dans les conseils d’administrations se sont vigoureusement professionnalisés pour défendre leurs intérêts, se mettant ni plus ni moins aux standards anglo-saxons et aux normes de gouvernance moderne démodant les si fameux petits arrangement entre « chers amis » c’est à l’Institut Français des administrateurs, à Daniel Lebègue qui l’a créé, à Agnès Touraine qui le préside désormais. Une autre époque pour ces instance de pilotage de la stratégie des entreprises qui justifie quelques sérieuses remises en cause compte tenu de la consanguinité chronique des vieux modèles.
Diversité, internationalisation, transparence, éthique, formation, professionnalisme….sur tous les fronts, il faut batailler, convaincre, décider afin que l’autorégulation évite le couperet de la loi. Agnès Touraine est donc aux avants postes de tous ces combats. La méthode douce n’exclut pas la détermination. « Un projet nous tient vraiment à cœur, le lien entre la qualité de la gouvernance et la compétitivité. Il faut que les organes de gouvernance soient vus comme des apports de valeurs ajoutées. » Cela suppose la qualité des compétences composant les conseils. L’un des plus vastes chantiers de la présidente de l’IFA.
En 10 ans, Daniel Lebègue a fait un travail remarquable en travaillant à cette révolution de la gouvernance des entreprises en France. Il y a 15 ans, la gouvernance était quelque chose qui n’existait pas. Avec l’évolution des lois, des règlements, et le code Afep-Medef de 2013 qui s’est mis en place, c’est probablement l’un des domaines où il se produit une vraie révolution par rapport au comportement des administrateurs d’autrefois. Elle se concrétise notamment par l’instauration des comités. Il y a 15 ans, il n’y avait ni comité d’audit, ni comité de rémunération, ni comité de nomination. Aujourd’hui, il n’y a pas de groupe coté où il n’y ait pas un comité d’audit, bien sûr, et un comité de rémunération, de nomination.
Si vous souhaitez connaître la réalité française eu égard à la gouvernance, je vous conseille de lire cet article. Voici les sujets abordés dans cet entretien :
L’apport de compétences
L’entrée des femmes aux conseils d’administration
Le déficit d’administrateurs étrangers
Gouvernance et compétitivité
La dissociation président/directeur général
Les administrateurs indépendants
Les rémunérations des patrons
Les salariés administrateurs
Le défi numérique
Les conseils des ETI et des start-up
L’évaluation des conseils d’administration
La maison des administrateurs
_________________________________________
Les chiffres clés des conseils d’administration
Part des femmes (2014) :
-29 % pour le CAC40 (19 % en 2012)
-26 % au sein du SBF120 (15 % en 2012)
Administrateurs étrangers (2014) :
-30 % au sein du CAC40 (23 % en 2012)
-22 % au sein du SBF120 (13 % en 2012)
Source : Étude Ernst & Young et Labrador
Dissociation des fonctions :
-14 % des sociétés du CAC40 dissocient président du conseil et direction générale
-21 % des sociétés du SBF120
-11 % des sociétés du CAC40 ont une structure conseil de surveillance/directoire
-16 % du SBF120 ont opté pour ce mode de gouvernance
Source : Rapport du Haut Comité de gouvernement d’entreprise
Le Say on Pay :
> 90% d’approbation aux AG 2014 du SBF120
Nombre d’administrateurs du marché Euronext Paris :
1/ Cote parisienne : 966 émetteurs
7 045 administrateurs, dont 795 indépendants (11,3 %) et 1 316 femmes (18,7 %).
Moyenne de 7,3 administrateurs par émetteur.
2/ CAC 40 : 587 administrateurs dont 204 indépendants (34,7 %) et 172 femmes (29,3 %).
Moyenne de 14,7 administrateurs par émetteur.
*Bio express de Agnès Touraine, l’administrateure internationale
Sciences-Po, un MBA à Columbia, puis des débuts chez McKinsey… du classique haut de gamme, version délibérément grand large, pour l’entrée dans une vie professionnelle qui va mener Agnès Touraine chez Hachette. Membre du comité exécutif puis directrice de la branche grande diffusion du groupe Livre Hachette, avant de prendre la présidence de la filiale multimédia de CEP Communication, devenue Havas Interactive, elle devient ensuite directrice générale déléguée et membre du comité exécutif de Vivendi Universal Publishing du temps de Jean-Marie Messier et des grandes acquisitions américaines. Cette passionnée de nouvelles technologies crée ensuite la société de conseil en management Act III Consultants, puis une structure dédiée aux jeux vidéo, Act III Gaming. Administratrice de nombreuses sociétés (Neopost, ITV, Coridis, Playcast Media) et de l’Institut Français des administrateurs, dont elle a pris la présidence cette année.
Voici un cas qui intéressera certainement tous les administrateurs qui siègent sur des CA d’entreprises familiales.
Comment un nouveau PDG (PCD), fils du propriétaire-fondateur, doit-il s’y prendre pour convaincre un CA formé d’administrateurs nommés par le père, lui-même maintenant président du conseil, du bien-fondé d’une décision audacieuse qui engage l’avenir de la société ?
Prenez connaissance du cas ci-dessous et consultez les avis émis par les trois experts en gouvernance retenus.
Nils is the managing director of his family business, a position he was promoted into when his father, the company founder, became chairman of the board. He was previously the marketing director. The company manufactures a wide range of food products from its base south west of Sydney. These are mostly sold under home brand packaging to large retail chains and a distribution company.
The other directors on the board are all longstanding advisors to his father and, as his father says, have kept the company from making many potentially costly mistakes, by providing prudent advice over the years.
Nils has conducted research and identified what he thinks is a great opportunity for the company to manufacture a branded product which it would initially sell through specialty stores and chemists to establish the brand before offering to the major supermarket chains. He is confident that the project can be funded from cash-flow and will not cannibalise the existing business. The bank has offered to increase the company’s line of credit to allow for working capital increases and possible cash flow timing issues.
Nils developed a proposal for the board and eagerly presented this under the title ‘new opportunity’ at the recent strategy retreat attended by the board and management. The board were horrified. They could only see risk in entering new distribution chains, possibly competing with their current customers, and investing in developing a branded product. Nils sees those risks and believes he has a strategy to counter them.
How can Nils encourage his board to be more innovative?
Quels sont les pratiques exemplaires de gouvernance eu égard à l’appartenance des PDG (DG/CEO) aux conseils d’administration de leurs organisations, plus particulièrement des OBNL ?
C’est l’une des recherches les plus effectuées sur Google avec plus de cinq millions de références reliées à ce sujet… On note également des discussions très animées sur les groupes de discussion LinkedIn, tels que Non-Profit Management Professionals.
C’est un sujet très populaire et, comme vous vous en doutez, les avis diffèrent largement en fonction du (1) type d’organisation, (1) de son histoire, (3) de sa mission et (4) des obligations règlementaires.
Dans certaines organisations à but non lucratif, le ou la PDG siège au conseil d’administration mais, à mon avis, ce n’est pas le cas pour la plupart des associations de bénévoles, des fondations et des entreprises philanthropiques. Une recherche rapide montre que les PDG ne siègent pas sur des entreprises telles que la Croix Rouge canadienne, le Festival d’été de Québec, Centraide du grand Montréal, le Club Musical, l’OSQ, Musique de chambre à Sainte-Pétronille, l’Ordre des administrateurs agréés du Québec, pour n’en nommer que quelques-unes.
Français : Sainte Prétonille, Île d’Orléans, province de Québec, Canada (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Généralement, si la législation ou la réglementation l’autorise, c’est au conseil d’administration de décider si le ou la PDG a le statut de membre du C.A., avec plein droit de vote, ou sans droit de vote. On observe que certaines législations américaines (la Californie, notamment) ne permettent pas aux PDG de voter à titre de membres du conseil. Au Québec, c’est le cas du CLD de Québec, par exemple.
Dans les sociétés d’état québécoises, les PDG sont nommé(e)s par le gouvernement sur recommandation du C.A.; les PDG siègent habituellement de plein droit sur les conseils d’administration. Dans le monde municipal, les DG ne sont pas membres des conseils municipaux, des MRC et des CRÉ.
Comme on le constate, un tour d’horizon rapide indique qu’il y a plusieurs possibilités : (1) le ou la PDG est membre à part entière du C.A., (2) le ou la PDG est membre du C.A., mais sans droit de vote, (3) le ou la PDG n’est pas membre du C.A. Dans presque tous les cas cependant, les PDG assistent aux réunions du conseil à titre de personnes ressource, même sans être membres du C.A.
Afin de bien départager les rôles complémentaires exercés par les membres du conseil et les membres de la direction et éviter les conflits qui pourraient naître dans certaines zones d’intérêt, notamment dans le domaine lié aux rémunérations, il m’apparaît être une bonne pratique de gouvernance de ne pas accorder un statut de membre du conseil d’administration à un ou une PDG.
Pour les organisations qui vivent avec une situation particulière, il serait souhaitable que le C.A., par l’intermédiaire du ou de la PCA, mette en œuvre une stratégie de changement (à plus ou moins long terme) pour revoir cet aspect de leur gouvernance.
L’article ci-dessous publié par Eugene Fram, Professeur émérite au Saunders College of Business du Rochester Institute of Technology, explique un peu la situation. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
State Legislation: Most nonprofit charters are issued by states, and it appears that the vast majority of American nonprofits are governed by these regulations. California does not permit the CEO to be a voting member. Until a recent change, New York did allow the CEO to become a board member. The motivations behind the legislation center on preventing a CEO developing conflicts-of interest, especially as they relate to salary decisions. Also, there is a feeling among some nonprofit directors that the board must be the « boss. » This attitude can even go as far as one nonprofit board member’s comment: « We tell the CEO exactly what to do. »
It appears that the restriction is considered a « best practice. » Some nonprofits move around it by naming the CEO an ex-official member of the board, a member without a vote. However, there is a « better practice, » available where permitted by legislation.
Developing An Even Better Practice in a Nonprofit
Start At The Top: Allow the CEO to hold the title of President/CEO and allow the senior volunteer to become board chair. This signals to staff and public that the board has full faith in the CEO as a professional manager. In addition, the change absolves the senior volunteer of potential financial liability, not unlike the volunteer who unwittingly received a $200,000 bill from the IRS because it appeared he had strong control of a bankrupt nonprofit’s finances and operations.
Ask The CEO: Make certain the CEO is willing and able to accept full responsibility for operations. Not all CEOs, designated as Executive Directors, want the increased responsibilities attached to such a title and to become a board member. These managers only feel comfortable with having the board micromanage operations and often openly discuss their reservations.
The CEO Becomes A Communications Nexus: Under the CEO’s guidance, board-staff contact takes place on task forces, strategic planning projects, at board orientations and at organization celebrations. It openly discourages the staff making « end runs » to board members, not a small problem in community-focused nonprofits
Brand Image: As a board director, the CEO can be more active in fund development. The board position and the title can easily help the CEO to build the organization’s public brand image through the clear public perceptions of the board’s choice to lead the organization. This provides leverage to make greater use of the board-CEO relationship required to develop funds. It can allow the CEO to be the spokesperson for the organization’s mission.
Peer Not Powerhouse: Probably descending from early religious nonprofits, its personnel may be seen by part of the public as not being « worldly. » They must be over-viewed by a group of laypersons that encounters the real world daily. The CEO, as a voting member and a team peer, takes on increasing importance to reducing these attitudes. As long as the CEO works successfully as a peer not a powerhouse, there should be substantial benefits to the organization.
Nous avons demandé à Richard Thibault*, président de RTCOMM, d’agir à titre d’auteur invité. Son billet présente sept leçons tirées de son expérience comme consultant en gestion de crise.
En tant que membres de conseils d’administration, vous aurez certainement l’occasion de vivre des crises significatives et il est important de connaître les règles que la direction doit observer en pareilles circonstances.
Voici donc, en reprise, l’article en question, reproduit ici avec la permission de l’auteur.
Vos commentaires sont appréciés. Bonne lecture !
Sept leçons apprises en matière de communications de crise
Par Richard Thibault*
La crise la mieux gérée est, dit-on, celle que l’on peut éviter. Mais il arrive que malgré tous nos efforts pour l’éviter, la crise frappe et souvent, très fort. Dans toute situation de crise, l’objectif premier est d’en sortir le plus rapidement possible, avec le moins de dommages possibles, sans compromettre le développement futur de l’organisation.
Voici sept leçons dont il faut s’inspirer en matière de communication de crise, sur laquelle on investit généralement 80% de nos efforts, et de notre budget, en de telles situations.
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill as seen from space by NASA’s Terra satellite on May 24, 2010 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
(1) Le choix du porte-parole
Les médias voudront tout savoir. Mais il faudra aussi communiquer avec l’ensemble de nos clientèles internes et externes. Avoir un porte-parole crédible et bien formé est essentiel. On ne s’improvise pas porte-parole, on le devient. Surtout en situation de crise, alors que la tension est parfois extrême, l’organisation a besoin de quelqu’un de crédible et d’empathique à l’égard des victimes. Cette personne devra être en possession de tous ses moyens pour porter adéquatement son message et elle aura appris à éviter les pièges. Le choix de la plus haute autorité de l’organisation comme porte-parole en situation de crise n’est pas toujours une bonne idée. En crise, l’information dont vous disposez et sur laquelle vous baserez vos décisions sera changeante, contradictoire même, surtout au début. Risquer la crédibilité du chef de l’organisation dès le début de la crise peut être hasardeux. Comment le contredire ensuite sans nuire à son image et à la gestion de la crise elle-même ?
(2) S’excuser publiquement si l’on est en faute
S’excuser pour la crise que nous avons provoqué, tout au moins jusqu’à ce que notre responsabilité ait été officiellement dégagée, est une décision-clé de toute gestion de crise, surtout si notre responsabilité ne fait aucun doute. En de telles occasions, il ne faut pas tenter de défendre l’indéfendable. Ou pire, menacer nos adversaires de poursuites ou jouer les matamores avec les agences gouvernementales qui nous ont pris en défaut. On a pu constater les impacts négatifs de cette stratégie utilisée par la FTQ impliquée dans une histoire d’intimidation sur les chantiers de la Côte-Nord, à une certaine époque. Règle générale : mieux vaut s’excuser, être transparent et faire preuve de réserve et de retenue jusqu’à ce que la situation ait été clarifiée.
(3) Être proactif
Dans un conflit comme dans une gestion de crise, le premier à parler évite de se laisser définir par ses adversaires, établit l’agenda et définit l’angle du message. On vous conseillera peut-être de ne pas parler aux journalistes. Je prétends pour ma part que si, légalement, vous n’êtes pas obligés de parler aux médias, eux, en contrepartie, pourront légalement parler de vous et ne se priveront pas d’aller voir même vos opposants pour s’alimenter. En août 2008, la canadienne Maple Leaf, compagnie basée à Toronto, subissait la pire crise de son histoire suite au décès et à la maladie de plusieurs de ses clients. Lorsque le lien entre la listériose et Maple Leaf a été confirmé, cette dernière a été prompte à réagir autant dans ses communications et son attitude face aux médias que dans sa gestion de la crise. La compagnie a très rapidement retiré des tablettes des supermarchés les produits incriminés. Elle a lancé une opération majeure de nettoyage, qu’elle a d’ailleurs fait au grand jour, et elle a offert son support aux victimes. D’ailleurs, la gestion des victimes est généralement le point le plus sensible d’une gestion de crise réussie.
(4) Régler le problème et dire comment
Dès les débuts de la crise, Maple Leaf s’est mise immédiatement au service de l’Agence canadienne d’inspection des aliments, offrant sa collaboration active et entière pour déterminer la cause du problème. Dans le même secteur alimentaire, tout le contraire de ce qu’XL Foods a fait quelques années plus tard. Chez Maple Leaf, tout de suite, des experts reconnus ont été affectés à la recherche de solutions. On pouvait reprocher à la compagnie d’être à la source du problème, mais certainement pas de se trainer les pieds en voulant le régler. Encore une fois, en situation de crise, camoufler sa faute ou refuser de voir publiquement la réalité en face est décidément une stratégie à reléguer aux oubliettes. Plusieurs années auparavant, Tylenol avait montré la voie en retirant rapidement ses médicaments des tablettes et en faisant la promotion d’une nouvelle méthode d’emballage qui est devenue une méthode de référence aujourd’hui.
(5) Employer le bon message
Il est essentiel d’utiliser le bon message, au bon moment, avec le bon messager, diffusé par le bon moyen. Les premiers messages surtout sont importants. Ils serviront à exprimer notre empathie, à confirmer les faits et les actions entreprises, à expliquer le processus d’intervention, à affirmer notre désir d’agir et à dire où se procurer de plus amples informations. Si la gestion des médias est névralgique, la gestion de l’information l’est tout autant. En situation de crise, on a souvent tendance à s’asseoir sur l’information et à ne la partager qu’à des cercles restreints, ou, au contraire, à inonder nos publics d’informations inutiles. Un juste milieu doit être trouvé entre ces deux stratégies sachant pertinemment que le message devra évoluer en même temps que la crise.
(6) Être conséquent et consistant
Même s’il évolue en fonction du stade de la crise, le message de base doit pourtant demeurer le même. Dans l’exemple de Maple Leaf évoqué plus haut, bien que de nouveaux éléments aient surgi au fur et à mesure de l’évolution de la crise, le message de base, à savoir la mise en œuvre de mesures visant à assurer la santé et la sécurité du public, a été constamment repris sur tous les tons. Ainsi, Maple Leaf s’est montrée à la fois consistante en respectant sa ligne de réaction initiale et conséquente, en restant en phase avec le développement de la situation.
(7) Être ouvert d’esprit
Dans toute situation de crise, une attitude d’ouverture s’avérera gagnante. Que ce soit avec les médias, les victimes, nos employés, nos partenaires ou les agences publiques de contrôle, un esprit obtus ne fera qu’envenimer la situation. D’autant plus qu’en situation de crise, ce n’est pas vraiment ce qui est arrivé qui compte mais bien ce que les gens pensent qui est arrivé. Il faut donc suivre l’actualité afin de pouvoir anticiper l’angle que choisiront les médias et s’y préparer en conséquence.
En conclusion
Dans une perspective de gestion de crise, il est essentiel de disposer d’un plan d’action au préalable, même s’il faut l’appliquer avec souplesse pour répondre à l’évolution de la situation. Lorsque la crise a éclaté, c’est le pire moment pour commencer à s’organiser. Il est essentiel d’établir une culture de gestion des risques et de gestion de crise dans l’organisation avant que la crise ne frappe. Comme le dit le vieux sage, » pour être prêt, faut se préparer ! »
____________________________________
* Richard Thibault, ABCP
Président de RTCOMM, une entreprise spécialisée en positionnement stratégique et en gestion de crise
Menant de front des études de Droit à l’Université Laval de Québec, une carrière au théâtre, à la radio et à la télévision, Richard Thibault s’est très tôt orienté vers le secteur des communications, duquel il a développé une expertise solide et diversifiée. Après avoir été animateur, journaliste et recherchiste à la télévision et à la radio de la région de Québec pendant près de cinq ans, il a occupé le poste d’animateur des débats et de responsable des affaires publiques de l’Assemblée nationale de 1979 à 1987.
Richard Thibault a ensuite tour à tour assumé les fonctions de directeur de cabinet et d’attaché de presse de plusieurs ministres du cabinet de Robert Bourassa, de conseiller spécial et directeur des communications à la Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au travail et de directeur des communications chez Les Nordiques de Québec.
En 1994, il fonda Richard Thibault Communications inc. (RTCOMM). D’abord spécialisée en positionnement stratégique et en communication de crise, l’entreprise a peu à peu élargi son expertise pour y inclure tous les champs de pratique de la continuité des affaires. D’autre part, reconnaissant l’importance de porte-parole qualifiés en période trouble, RTCOMM dispose également d’une école de formation à la parole en public. Son programme de formation aux relations avec les médias est d’ailleurs le seul programme de cette nature reconnu par le ministère de la Sécurité publique du Québec, dans un contexte de communication d’urgence. Ce programme de formation est aussi accrédité par le Barreau du Québec.
Richard Thibault est l’auteur de Devenez champion dans vos communications et de Osez parler en public, publié aux Éditions MultiMondes et de Comment gérer la prochaine crise, édité chez Transcontinental, dans la Collection Entreprendre. Praticien reconnu de la gestion des risques et de crise, il est accrédité par la Disaster Recovery Institute International (DRII).
Spécialités : Expert en positionnement stratégique, gestion des risques, communications de crise, continuité des affaires, formation à la parole en public.
Voici un ensemble de questions très pertinentes que vous pourriez (devriez) poser avant de vous joindre à un conseil d’administration. Cet article, rédigé par Ellen B. Richstone*, a été publié aujourd’hui dans NACD Directorship; il présente un genre de « check list » qui vous sera sûrement d’une grande utilité au moment de considérer une offre de participation à un C.A.
Je sais, on ne se préoccupe généralement pas de faire un examen (« due diligence ») aussi serré que ce qui est proposé ici mais, si vous avez la chance d’avoir une offre, pourquoi ne pas considérer sérieusement les questions ci-dessous.
C’est un prélude au genre de travail que vous aurez à faire quand vous siégerez à ce conseil : poser des questions !
L’article nous invite à se questionner sur les aspects suivants :
Question 2 (Photo credit: Blue Square Thing)
(1) La mission, la vision, les stratégies, le plan d’action
(2) La dynamique du marché et la part de marché
(3) Les produits
(4) Les compétiteurs
(5) Les clients
(6) Les aspects financiers
(7) Les aspects légaux et l’assurance-responsabilité des administrateurs
(8) Les relations entre le C.A. et la direction
(9) La structure du conseil et la nature des relations entre les administrateurs
(10) Les relations avec les actionnaires
(11) La qualité des produits et services
(12) La qualité des ressources humaines et les relations de travail
(13) Vos valeurs personnelles
(14) Le risque de réputation
(15) Le modèle de gouvernance
Après avoir obtenu des réponses à ces questions, vous devez voir si la culture organisationnelle vous sied et, surtout, si votre contribution peut constituer une valeur ajoutée à ce conseil.
You are considering joining a company’s board. You reviewed the publicly available financial, legal, and business information; spoke with management, internal and external legal counsel, and auditors; and evaluated the D&O policy.
You are all set, right? In fact, this is the beginning of your due diligence process: the hardest questions are the least measurable, but equally and sometimes more important than the measurable ones.
With many questions, a company might not want to share the details until you have actually joined the board. In those cases, focus on whether the board and management have a process in place that supports a thoughtful discussion. In particular, think about these questions against the backdrop of your board value and effectiveness.
______________________________________
* Ellen B. Richstone has extensive board and operating experience, both as a CEO and a CFO, and as a director in companies ranging in size from venture capital-backed to S&P 500, public, and private. She currently serves on the board of the NACD New England Chapter, along with several other boards.
Quels sont les principes fondamentaux de la bonne gouvernance ? Voilà un sujet bien d’actualité, une question fréquemment posée, laquelle appelle, trop souvent, des réponses complexes et peu utiles pour ceux qui siègent sur des conseils d’administration.
L’article de Jo Iwasaki, paru sur le site du NewStateman, a l’avantage de résumer très succinctement les cinq (5) grands principes qui doivent animer et inspirer les administrateurs de sociétés.
Les principes évoqués dans l’article sont simples et directs; ils peuvent même paraître simplistes mais, à mon avis, ils devraient servir de puissants guides de référence à tous les administrateurs de sociétés.
Les cinq principes retenus dans l’article sont les suivants :
Un solide engagement du conseil (leadership);
Une grande capacité d’action liée au mix de compétences, expertises et savoir être;
Une reddition de compte efficace envers les parties prenantes;
Un objectif de création de valeur et une distribution équitable entre les principaux artisans de la réussite;
De solides valeurs d’intégrité et de transparence susceptibles de faire l’objet d’un examen minutieux de la part des parties prenantes.
« What board members need to remind themselves is that they are collectively responsible for the long-term success of their company. This may sound obvious but it is not always recognised ».
Our suggestion is to get back to the fundamental principles of good governance which board members should bear in mind in carrying out their responsibilities. If there are just a few, simple and short principles, board members can easily refer to them when making decisions without losing focus. Such a process should be open and dynamic.
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
An effective board should head each company. The Board should steer the company to meet its business purpose in both the short and long term.
Capability
The Board should have an appropriate mix of skills, experience and independence to enable its members to discharge their duties and responsibilities effectively.
Accountability
The Board should communicate to the company’s shareholders and other stakeholders, at regular intervals, a fair, balanced and understandable assessment of how the company is achieving its business purpose and meeting its other responsibilities.
Sustainability
The Board should guide the business to create value and allocate it fairly and sustainably to reinvestment and distributions to stakeholders, including shareholders, directors, employees and customers.
Integrity
The Board should lead the company to conduct its business in a fair and transparent manner that can withstand scrutiny by stakeholders.
We kept them short, with purpose, but we also kept them aspirational. None of them should be a surprise – they might be just like you have on your board. Well, why not share and exchange our ideas – the more we debate, the better we remember the principles which guide our owbehaviour.
De son côté, l’Ordre des administrateurs agréés du Québec (OAAQ) a retenu six (6) valeurs fondamentales qui devraient guider les membres dans l’accomplissement de leurs tâches de professionnels. Il est utile de les rappeler dans ce billet :
Transparence
La transparence laisse paraître la réalité tout entière, sans qu’elle ne soit altérée ou biaisée. Il n’existe d’autre principe plus vertueux que la transparence de l’acte administratif par l’administrateur qui exerce un pouvoir au nom de son détenteur; celui qui est investi d’un pouvoir doit rendre compte de ses actes à son auteur.
Essentiellement, l’administrateur doit rendre compte de sa gestion au mandant ou autre personne ou groupe désigné, par exemple, à un conseil d’administration, à un comité de surveillance ou à un vérificateur. L’administrateur doit également agir de façon transparente envers les tiers ou les préposés pouvant être affectés par ses actes dans la mesure où le mandant le permet et qu’il n’en subit aucun préjudice.
Continuité
La continuité est ce qui permet à l’administration de poursuivre ses activités sans interruption. Elle implique l’obligation du mandataire de passer les pouvoirs aux personnes et aux intervenants désignés pour qu’ils puissent remplir leurs obligations adéquatement.
La continuité englobe aussi une perspective temporelle. L’administrateur doit choisir des avenues et des solutions qui favorisent la survie ou la croissance à long terme de la société qu’il gère. En lien avec la saine gestion, l’atteinte des objectifs à court terme ne doit pas menacer la viabilité d’une organisation à plus long terme.
Efficience
L’efficience allie efficacité, c’est-à-dire, l’atteinte de résultats et l’optimisation des ressources dans la pose d’actes administratifs. L’administrateur efficient vise le rendement optimal de la société à sa charge et maximise l’utilisation des ressources à sa disposition, dans le respect de l’environnement et de la qualité de vie.
Conscient de l’accès limité aux ressources, l’administrateur met tout en œuvre pour les utiliser avec diligence, parcimonie et doigté dans le but d’atteindre les résultats anticipés. L’absence d’une utilisation judicieuse des ressources constitue une négligence, une faute qui porte préjudice aux commettants.
Équilibre
L’équilibre découle de la juste proportion entre force et idées opposées, d’où résulte l’harmonie contributrice de la saine gestion des sociétés. L’équilibre se traduit chez l’administrateur par l’utilisation dynamique de moyens, de contraintes et de limites imposées par l’environnement en constante évolution.
Pour atteindre l’équilibre, l’administrateur dirigeant doit mettre en place des mécanismes permettant de répartir et balancer l’exercice du pouvoir. Cette pratique ne vise pas la dilution du pouvoir, mais bien une répartition adéquate entre des fonctions nécessitant des compétences et des habiletés différentes.
Équité
L’équité réfère à ce qui est foncièrement juste. Plusieurs applications en lien avec l’équité sont enchâssées dans la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés de la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne et dans la Charte québécoise des droits et libertés de la personne. L’administrateur doit faire en sorte de gérer en respect des lois afin de prévenir l’exercice abusif ou arbitraire du pouvoir.
Abnégation
L’abnégation fait référence à une personne qui renonce à tout avantage ou intérêt personnel autre que ceux qui lui sont accordés par contrat ou établis dans le cadre de ses fonctions d’administrateur.
Voici le condensé d’un article publié par Deloitte en 2011 et que j’ai relayé à mes premiers abonnés au début de la création de mon blogue.
En revisitant mes billets, j’ai été en mesure de constater que plusieurs parutions étaient encore d’une grande pertinence. Ainsi, afin de revenir sur mes débuts comme blogueur, je vous présente un document de la firme Deloitte qui énumère dix (10) activités que les conseils d’administration doivent éviter de faire.
Les suggestions sont toujours aussi d’actualité. Bonne relecture !
Avoid presentation overload
Presentations should not dominate board meetings. If your board meetings consist of a scripted agenda packed with one presentation after another, there may not be sufficient time for substantive discussions. The majority of board meetings should be focused on candid dialogue about the critical strategic issues facing the company. The advance meeting materials should comprise information that provides the basis for the discussions held during the meeting. Management should feel confident that the board will read these pre-meeting materials, and the board must commit an adequate amount of time in advance of the meeting to do so.
Avoid understating the importance of compliance
There is no room for a culture of complacency when it comes to compliance with laws and regulations. As noted in the Deloitte publication
Avoid postponing the CEO succession discussion
CEO succession planning is one of the primary roles of the board. With the changing governance landscape and new and proposed regulations, the board has a full agenda these days. However, it is important to occasionally take a step back to ensure the board is addressing this important responsibility. During this time of rebuilding and prior to the implementation of new regulations, boards should assess where time is being spent and perhaps redirect focus on succession.
It is important to note that the succession planning process is continual and doesn’t end when a new CEO is selected. As the company evolves, its needs change, as do the skills required of the leadership team. The board needs to ensure that a leadership pipeline is developed and that its members have ample opportunity to connect with the next generation of leaders.
Avoid the trap of homogeneity
The topic of board composition and having the « right » people on the board continues to receive much attention. The SEC has proposed rules that would require more disclosure about director qualifications, including what makes each director qualified to participate on certain board committees. The shift to independent board members facilitated a move away from a « friends on the board » approach to a new mix. However, the board needs to assess whether this new mix translates into a positive and productive board dynamic. Boards should take a closer look at the expertise, experience and other qualities of each member to ensure the board that can provide the right expertise. Diversity of thought provides the perspectives needed to effectively address critical topics, which can contribute to greater productivity and ultimately a stronger board.
Avoid excessive short-term focus
Perpetual existence is one of the principal reasons for the initial development of a corporation. However, recent history offers many examples of modern corporate entities managing to reach short-term results at the expense of long-term prosperity. The board can demonstrate its leadership by being the voice of reason and openly discussing the sustainability of strategic initiatives. This can result in a well-governed company with a greater chance of achieving long-term, sustainable success.
Avoid approvals if you don’t understand the issue
Complex issues can have significant implications for the survival of an organization. It is up to directors to make sure that they understand issues that can alter the future of an enterprise before a vote is taken. This doesn’t require dissecting every detail, but it should consist of a thorough investigation and assessment of the risks and rewards of proposed transactions. If you don’t adequately understand the issue, ask for more education from management or external experts. It comes down to being able to ask the tough questions of management and probing further if things do not make sense. Consensus doesn’t mean going along with the crowd. True consensus results from a thorough debate and airing of the issues before the board, resulting in a more informed vote by directors.
Avoid discounting the value of experience
As a director, it is important to recognize the value that your experience can bring to the issues at hand. Good governance doesn’t mean checking all the right boxes. Rather, it is bringing together the diverse skills and experiences of each director to lead the company through challenges. Directors can provide greater insight by being ‘situationally aware’ when evaluating events and courses of action to take. Just as the captain of a ship needs to understand the various environmental factors that influence navigation, boards need to understand the external risks that may have an impact on the navigation of the company. Consider the context of the current issue, how it is similar to, or different from, previous experiences, what alternatives could be considered, and how outside forces may impede a successful outcome. Don’t discount the value of experience just because it was gained outside the boardroom.
Avoid stepping over the line into management’s role
A board that makes management decisions will find it difficult to hold the CEO accountable for the outcome. A director’s role is to oversee the efforts of management rather than stepping into management’s shoes. Directors must make a concentrated effort to ensure that they have clarity on management’s role, which is to operate the company. The distinction between the board and management is often blurred by directors who forget that they are not charged with running the day-to-day operations of an enterprise. This doesn’t prevent a director from getting into the details of an issue facing the company, but it does mean that directors should avoid stepping over the line.
Avoid ignoring shareholders
A company’s shareholders are among the most important and potentially vocal constituents of the enterprise. Concerns can sometimes be addressed by providing shareholders an audience with the board to air their concerns. Historically, compliance with the SEC Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD) rules has been perceived as a hindrance to directors engaging in shareholder dialogue and meetings. As outlined in the Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance policy briefing.
Avoid a bias to risk aversion
With the recent focus on excessive risk-taking and its impact on the credit crisis, there is concern that companies and boards may become risk-averse.
Ce matin, je vous propose une réflexion basée sur une discussion parue dans le groupe Board of Directors Society de LinkedIn.
Les propos sont publiés par Kimiharu (Kim) Chatani, Directeur-Conseil chez KPMG; ils mettent en lumière l’importance, pour le conseil d’administration et le management, de se doter d’un plan d’affaires qui prend en compte les activités reliées au développement durable.
Les commentaires font ressortir le caractère irréversible des activités de surveillance amorcées par les CA ainsi que la sensibilité accrue des grandes entreprises américaines à l’égard de la gouvernance à long terme, laquelle est beaucoup plus axée sur les besoins des diverses parties prenantes et sur l’analyse en profondeur des grands changements sociaux.
L’auteur souligne que 95 % des 250 plus grandes entreprises mondiales divulguent des rapports de développement durable (sustainability reports).
Bonne lecture !
Oversight of Corporate Sustainability Activities
Value creation, long-term business resiliency, strategic risk management, and stewardship represent the essence of the board’s role in overseeing corporate sustainability activities. Sustainability oversight is increasingly becoming a board-level issue for several reasons.
First and most fundamentally, boards are meant to safeguard the assets of the companies they serve, and one of the trickiest “assets” to understand, let alone protect, is the company’s social license to operate.
Second, the ways in which a company affects, and is affected by, global mega-trends such as population growth, an expanding urban middle class in emerging markets, demographic change, resource scarcity, climate change, and transformative technologies —all of which fall under the rubric of sustainability issues — are often at the core of board-management discussions about strategy, risk, and performance.
Thus, understanding how a company executes its business model within a changing operating context, and with an eye toward long-term profitability, is squarely a board issue and a director’s responsibility.
The Current State of Sustainability Governance
Many companies still see sustainability as a set of “softer” issues that can be relegated to marketing or public relations departments. The links between environmental and social issues, core business operations, and corporate reputation are becoming increasingly material, however.
On one recent survey, the number of companies reporting that their sustainability activities contributed to profits rose by 23 percent year over year, and nearly half of the respondents reported changing their business models in response to sustainability-related opportunities.
Companies are highlighting their place on global sustainability indices including the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, FTSE4Good, and Corporate Knights’ Global 100, which saw 31 new honorees in 2014.
Ninety-five percent of the world’s 250 largest companies, and 86 percent of the largest U.S. companies, produce sustainability reports.
Shareholder interest is growing: nearly half of shareholder proposal submissions in 2014 related to environmental and social matters.
According to one report, companies that fail to connect their sustainability activities to financial and operational performance are missing out on potential opportunities to better understand how sustainability can identify and reduce risk and boost returns. As David Kiron, executive editor of MIT Sloan Management Review, put it, leading-edge companies “don’t dwell on [sustainability] as a cost issue. They focus on how their efforts can increase market share, boost energy efficiency, and build competitive advantage.”
Despite these trends, the extent of board-level oversight of sustainability issues varies considerably. Studies from organizations such as the Investor Responsibility Research Center Institute (IRRCi) and Ceres show that a notable and growing proportion of large, publicly traded companies have explicit, board-level oversight of sustainability and corporate responsibility activities: indeed, they are three times more likely than smaller companies to have board oversight of environmental and/or social issues.
But the overarching message of the IRRCi and Ceres reports, as well as similar studies, is that there is considerable room for improvement. At many companies, the level of board-level oversight of environmental and social sustainability activities is not consistent with the link between these activities and the firm’s strategic imperatives, or with the attention that key stakeholders are placing on the underlying issues.
Vous serez certainement très intéressés par le site de Julie Garland McLellan, administratrice de sociétés et consultante internationale auprès de conseils d’administration, de Sydney, Australie.
Voyez le genre de questionnements ou de dilemmes présentés dans sa série The Director’s Dilemma.
In the course of my work advising boards and directors I encounter complex and challenging issues. There are often several different ways to resolve the issues. Each way will have different pros and cons for the individuals and companies concerned. Every month The Director’s Dilemma will address an issue with the assistance of some governance experts that I admire and enjoy working with.
Julie Garland McLellan
En guise d’exemple, je vous présente le cas du mois de novembre 2014 :
Récemment, le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) a répondu à la demande de l’organisme « ecoDa » (The European Confederation of Directors Associations) de produire une capsule vidéo de formation sur les tendances en matière de gouvernance de sociétés au Canada et aux États-Unis. Cette vidéo sera présentée par ecoDa à chaque offre de son cours « New Governance Challenges for Board Members in Europe » présentée en classe à Bruxelles en Belgique, siège social de l’ecoDa.
Ce mandat a été réalisé avec succès grâce à la contribution de Gilles Bernier, directeur des programmes du CAS, qui a réuni Mme Alexandra Lajoux, Chief Knowledge Officer de la National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) aux États-Unis et M. Chris Bart, Founder and Lead Faculty du Directors College en Ontario.
Intitulé « Where is Corporate Governance Going : The View from Canada and the USA », cette vidéo de formation vise à sensibiliser les participants à l’évolution des pratiques de gouvernance à l’extérieur de l’Europe.
D’une durée de 20 minutes, les experts invités discutent des sujets suivants :
(1) le rôle du CA à l’égard de la stratégie et du risque
(2) la réglementation et les enjeux touchant les investisseurs
(3) les nouvelles tendances en matière de gouvernance des TI et celles touchant la gouvernance des principales sociétés œuvrant dans le secteur technologique
(4) l’importance du talent et de la diversité sur les conseils, ainsi que l’importance de la formation des administrateurs de sociétés.
Voici un court article de Mark Pastin publié dans Chief Executive magazine qui présente cinq erreurs en éthique, souvent commises par le président et chef de la direction de nos entreprises.
Il est très important de bien comprendre la portée de ces erreurs parce que, comme dit l’auteur, celles-ci peuvent être évitées. Je crois que les énoncés qui suivent sont assez évidents !
Je vous souhaite une bonne lecture et je souhaiterais recevoir vos commentaires.
Mistake #1: Assuming that a business practice is acceptable because it’s common practice in the industry
This depends on which companies in an industry you compare yourself to. For example, Enron was the most admired company in the energy industry—until it wasn’t. If you are the first one in an industry caught doing something wrong, you often pay the price for the entire industry correcting its practices. There is a scene in the movie Tin Men in which two aluminum siding salesmen sit outside a congressional hearing saying to one another, “We only did what everyone was doing.” If this sounds a bit lame, avoid putting yourself in the same position.
Mistake #2: Confusing legal advice with ethical advice
The job of legal counsel is to tell you the legal consequences of various courses of action—not whether you should take those actions. It is the job of the CEO to decide which risks to take and which to avoid. An action can be legal but still be unethical. Many of the investment activities that led to the 2008 recession were perfectly legal—and also perfectly unethical. It is a mistake to use your legal counsel as your conscience just because you are used to disclosing confidential information to your lawyers. Once you step outside of the domain of legal advice, legal counsel is no more able to give good ethical advice than any of your other advisors.
Mistake #3: Trusting the managers potentially implicated in an ethical issue to investigate the issue
While it is important to show managers that you trust them, it is more important to protect the reputation of your company. It is hard for managers to admit they made an ethical mistake or that an ethical mistake was made on their watch. The CEO should have resources, such as a compliance officer or director of internal audit, outside the line of command to investigate potential legal and ethical breaches. When these resources are regularly used to investigate serious matters, line managers will not be surprised when they are called upon to investigate an ethical issue. They will not conclude that you don’t trust them if they know that this is how serious issues are always addressed.
Mistake #4: Fixing a problem going forward without owning the problem’s history
This would be like GM fixing its ignition problem going forward without owning the problem in cars currently on the road. This never works, but it is very tempting to CEOs who don’t want a past problem dragging their organization down. How often have you heard a CEO or company say, “As soon as we learned of the problem, we fixed it.” That is simply not good enough. You need to show that the organization recognizes the harm caused by an unethical practice and is taking steps to rectify past harm, while avoiding repeating the same action again. Everyone will be asking, “What about everything leading up to the present?” So you have to be ready to answer this question.
Mistake #5: Judging the information you receive by the person from whom you receive it
I know of no ethical fiasco that did not present clearer warning signs. Somehow these signs were ignored—and not without reason. The information that enables you to prevent an ethical crisis often comes from individuals who are afraid of taking any risks, whine about everything, and have a chip on their shoulder. I have just described one type of whistleblower. Whistleblowers are more protected and rewarded under current law than many CEOs realize. This is especially true of the defense, financial services, and healthcare sectors where whistleblowers are not only protected, but can sometimes even receive bounties in the tens of millions of dollars. Sharp CEOs ignore the source of troubling information and evaluate the information without bias. An ethical leader is always asking, “What if this information, although from a questionable source, is true? Would I gamble the future of my organization on it not being true?”
All of these ethical mistakes can be avoided if you are on the lookout for them. The most important way to avoid ethical mistakes is by paying attention to information you would rather ignore or believe to be untrue. Ethical mistakes tend not to go away. The longer you know of an unethical action without reacting to it, the worse the consequences of eventually admitting the mistake for the organization—and its leader. CEOs know that such mistakes, even if not involving illegal activities, can destroy the reputation of an organization. And they know that ignoring or covering up such a mistake simply compounds the consequences of mistakes.
Ethical leadership is not just about having and acting on sound values; it is about confronting the facts no matter how uncomfortable it may be to do so.
Recruter des profils similaires, capitaliser sur ses points forts… Ces « archaïsmes managériaux » sont à revoir, selon Pascal Picq, paléoanthropologue au Collège de France. Car la clef de l’évolution est dans la diversité. Décryptage.
Vouloir coller parfaitement à un modèle idéal préétabli est une vue universaliste des choses qui nie les contraintes mouvantes et nos capacités à y répondre en innovant. Car l’homme est l’espèce qui a la plus grande plasticité comportementale, physique et cognitive. D’où l’importance pour un manager de dépasser les clichés du « bien agir » qui figent les comportements et freinent l’élan créatif et adaptatif.
En savoir plus sur http://lentreprise.lexpress.fr/rh-management/management/management-cinq-idees-recues-qui-ont-la-vie-dure_1614209.html#c1kIkRIcVqUuvVpy.99
Le micro-management est certainement un danger qui guette beaucoup d’administrateurs siégeant sur des conseils d’administration, surtout sur des CA d’OBNL.
Le court article publié par Eugene Fram sur son blogue Nonprofit Management montre qu’il y certaines situations de Start-Up qui nécessitent une implication des administrateurs dans la gestion de leur organisation; mais, il n’est pas rare que ce comportement devienne une très mauvaise habitude à plus long terme*.
L’auteur présente les dangers reliés aux comportements des administrateurs qui investissent inconsidérément les rôles de gestionnaires.
Les administrateurs doivent toujours se rappeler qu’ils ont un devoir de fiduciaire envers les actionnaires ou les membres d’une OBNL et qu’ils peuvent difficilement exercer leurs responsabilités s’ils effectuent des tâches de nature managériale.
Cette façon de faire détruit l’initiative des gestionnaires et sape leurs sens des responsabilités.
Micromanaging is a method of management in which an individual closely observes or controls the work of an employee. In comparison to simply giving general direction, the micromanager monitors and evaluates every stage in a process, from beginning to end. This behavior negatively affects efficiency, creativity, trust, communication, problem-solving, and the company’s ability to reach its goals.
The typical micromanager spends their time directing employees rather than empowering them. They are often very insecure. They spend more time with the details of business operations instead of planning the company’s short-term and long-term growth strategies. The fact of the matter is, time DOES equal money. When the designated leader of an organization is wasting time (and therefore money) on overseeing projects instead of focusing on specific growth opportunities, it’s time to reevaluate a few things.
The Need for a Micromanaging Board
Board micromanagement is an appropriate approach when either a nonprofit or for-profit is in a start-up stage. Financial and human resources are modest, and the directors often assume some responsibilities normally executed by compensated staff. The chief executive often has managerial responsibilities as well as a list of low-level operational duties. As extreme examples, I have even seen CEOs install office furniture or install floor tiles.
Long Term Implications
Prolonging these types of activities much after they are needed can imbed micromanagement in the DNA of the organization’s decision-making. Some directors may even obtain ego gratification from continual micromanaging. It can provide more immediate gratifications not found with policy or strategy development. If their mandates fail, they can always quietly blame management for poor implementations. Eventually these failures have an impact on the organization, either by stunting development or causing it to fail. Following are some of the behavioral patterns that become part of the decision-making environment:
Less competent managers are attracted to executive positions – There is a tendency to promote people with good operational records work into key management positions. They may have even taken university courses in management or social dynamics but they fail to realistically implement what they have learned into the dynamics of the real world problems.
Delegating Decisions Upward – Knowing that even small decisions will need to have board review, if not approval, the organization takes no pride in taking initiative, being creative and employing critical thinking. There is also a tendency to shirk responsibility.
More Difficult Recruitment — When the board comes to the conclusion it needs more talented managers, the directors may have trouble understanding why talented recruits reject their offers. Sometimes a talented senior manger may take a position after negotiating an understanding that the micromanaging board will change or modify the way it operates. However changing such an imbedded culture can be difficult and sometimes impossible, if a founder has established a micromanagement environment for the board.
Founders of both nonprofit and for-profit organizations can generate micromanaging boards that last for years beyond their tenures. Succeeding boards can be composed of directors who follow the founders’ management styles and are not capable of excising the unhealthy DNA surging through the organization.
Board micromanagement in either nonprofit or business organizations, when continued beyond a start-up stage, can be can be viewed as an incipient disease. It, at any point, can cause a “heart attack” in the organization.
Vous trouverez, ci-après, un document de l’Institut de l’audit interne (IIA) du Royaume-Uni (UK) partagé par Denis Lefort, expert conseil en gouvernance, audit interne et contrôle, qui porte sur le rôle de l’audit interne sur la culture organisationnelle.
Auditer la culture organisationnelle est une activité qui peut s’avérer complexe mais qui peut apporter néanmoins une grande valeur ajoutée. Le présent guide de l’IIA UK saura vous apporter un éclairage intéressant et utile à cet égard.
Le document de l’IIA est très intéressant car il expose clairement la problématique d’intervention de l’audit interne dans ce domaine, tout en agrémentant les actions à entreprendre de plusieurs exemples concrets d’intervention.
The approach taken by IIA report on culture is reflected in the new (September 2014) FRC Corporate Governance Code, which says « One of the key roles for the board includes establishing the culture, values and ethics of the company. It is important that the board sets the correct ‘tone from the top’. »
The accompanying FRC guidance on risk management – exercising responsibilities says “The board should establish the tone for risk management and internal control and put in place appropriate systems to enable it to meet its responsibilities effectively”
“In deciding what arrangements are appropriate the board should consider, amongst other things:
The culture it wishes to embed in the company, and whether this has been achieved.
What assurance the board requires, and how this is to be obtained.”
How should internal audit support boards in giving assuarance on culture?
Foreword
Public trust in business has ebbed and flowed over recent years but a significant minority (circa 40%) of those questioned by Ipsos MORI believe companies are ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ ethical in the way they behave. Responsibility and ownership for addressing this lies with those who sit in the boardroom. This is supported by regulators in the way that they now monitor and review the culture of organisations.
Internal audit is a unique function within an organisation with its independence and access to give assurance to those in the boardroom. This can provide confidence that there is a strong commitment to good conduct and that it is actually being translated into everyday behaviours, but also, more importantly, where it is not. To have this information allows the board an opportunity to mitigate the risk of integrity failure.
Leaders need to send a message and show by example that culture and values matter, demonstrating this by putting in place all the necessary measures. I believe this report will support boards and audit committees to help rebuild public trust by making the best use of internal audit as they develop their thinking around how to improve ethical conduct for the benefit of customers, employees, all other stakeholders and for business itself.
Philippa Foster Back CBE
Director
Institute of Business Ethics
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 