Étiquette : independance

Performance et dynamique des conseils d’administration | Yvan Allaire


Yvan Allaire, président exécutif du conseil de l’Institut sur la gouvernance (IGOPP) vient de me faire parvenir un nouvel article intitulé « Performance et dynamique des conseils d’administration | un échange avec des administrateurs expérimentés ».

Je crois que cet article intéressera tous les administrateurs siégeant à des conseils d’administration. Personnellement, je suis très heureux de constater que la démarche ait consisté en des rencontres avec des groupes d’administrateurs chevronnés.

Plusieurs messages très pertinents ressortent des rencontres. Ils sont regroupés selon les catégories suivantes :

  1. La taille du conseil
  2. La composition du conseil
  3. La présidence du conseil
  4. L’évaluation du conseil
  5. Information et prise de décision
  6. Les comités du conseil

Je vous invite à lire l’ensemble du document sur le site de l’IGOPP. Voici un  extrait de cet article.

Bonne lecture !

Performance et dynamique des conseils d’administration | un échange avec des administrateurs expérimentés

 

« Une longue expérience comme administrateur de sociétés mène souvent au constat que la qualité de la gouvernance et l’efficacité d’un conseil tiennent à des facteurs subtils, difficilement quantifiables, mais tout aussi importants, voire plus importants, que les aspects fiduciaires et formels.

Cette dimension informelle de la gouvernance prend forme et substance dans les échanges, les interactions sociales, l’encadrement des discussions, le style de leadership du président du conseil, dans tout ce qui se passe avant et après les réunions formelles ainsi qu’autour de la table au moment des réunions du conseil et de ses comités.

105868_les-administrateurs-independants-se-developpent-dans-les-eti-web-tete-0203979034507

Cela est vrai pour tout type de sociétés, que ce soient une entreprise cotée en bourse, un organisme public, une société d’État, une coopérative ou un organisme sans but lucratif.

L’IGOPP estime que pour relever encore l’efficacité des conseils d’administration il est important de bien comprendre ce qui peut contribuer à une dynamique productive entre les membres d’un conseil.

Pourtant, alors que les études sur tous les aspects de la gouvernance foisonnent, cet aspect fait l’objet de peu de recherches empiriques, et ce pour une raison bien simple. Les conseils d’administration ne peuvent donner à des chercheurs un accès direct à leurs réunions ni à leur documentation en raison des contraintes de confidentialité.

Le professeur Richard Leblanc, grâce au réseau de son directeur de thèse de doctorat et co-auteur James Gillies, a pu, rare exception, observer un certain nombre de conseils d’administration en action. Ils ont publié en 2005 un ouvrage Inside the Boardroom, lequel propose une intéressante typologie des comportements dominants des membres de conseil au cours de réunions.

Depuis aucune autre étude empirique n’a été menée sur le sujet. D’ailleurs, l’ouvrage de Leblanc et Gillies, se limitant aux comportements observables lors de réunions formelles, ne nous éclairait que sur une partie du phénomène »

…

« L’IGOPP a voulu mieux comprendre cette dynamique et, si possible, proposer aux administrateurs et présidents de conseil des suggestions pouvant améliorer la qualité de la gouvernance.

L’IGOPP a donc invité des membres de conseil expérimentés et férus de gouvernance pour un échange sur cet enjeu. Les 14 personnes suivantes ont accepté promptement notre invitation et nous les en remercions chaleureusement:

  1. Jacynthe Côté
  2. Gérard Coulombe
  3. Isabelle Courville
  4. Paule Doré
  5. Jean La Couture
  6. Sylvie Lalande
  7. John LeBoutillier
  8. Brian Levitt
  9. David L. McAusland
  10. Marie-José Nadeau
  11. Réal Raymond
  12. Louise Roy
  13. Guylaine Saucier
  14. Jean-Marie Toulouse, qui a agi comme modérateur des discussions.

Collectivement, nos interlocuteurs siègent au sein de 75 conseils, dont 34 sont des sociétés ouvertes parmi lesquelles 14 ont leur siège hors Québec.

Nous avons tenu quatre sessions, chacune comptant un petit nombre d’administrateurs, de façon à ce que les discussions permettent à tous de s’exprimer pleinement.

Ces sessions furent riches en commentaires, observations pertinentes et suggestions utiles ».

Plusieurs messages très pertinents ressortent des rencontres. Ils sont regroupés selon les catégories suivantes :

  1. La taille du conseil
  2. La composition du conseil
  3. La présidence du conseil
  4. L’évaluation du conseil
  5. Information et prise de décision
  6. Les comités du conseil

En conclusion, l’auteur mentionne que « ce texte tente de rendre justice aux échanges entre les 14 administrateurs chevronnés qui ont participé à cette recherche de pistes d’amélioration de la dynamique des conseils d’administration et donc de la gouvernance de nos sociétés ».

 

Rémunération, par les fonds activistes, de candidats à des postes d’administrateurs | Est-ce acceptable ?


Un actionnaire activiste (Hedge Funds) qui veut faire élire un de ses partisans à un conseil d’administration ciblé peut-il le rémunérer afin qu’il puisse faire campagne pour son élection à un poste d’administrateur ?

Quelle est la loi à cet égard ? Quelles sont les recommandations de la firme ISS dans ces cas ?

La laisse dorée (« golden leash »), comme on appelle ce lien avec le promoteur de la campagne électorale, est-elle congruente avec le droit des actionnaires ? Ou, cette pratique est-elle sujette à d’éventuels conflits d’intérêts au détriment des actionnaires ?

Il semble bien que cette pratique soit de plus en plus répandue et qu’elle soit « légale », bien que la SEC n’ait pas dit son dernier mot à ce stade-ci. La pratique est appuyée par les grandes firmes de conseil en votation (ISS et Glass Lewis).

L’article publié par Andrew A. Schwartz*, professeur à l’École de droit de l’Université du Colorado, est paru aujourd’hui sur le forum de la HBL School on Corporate Governance. On y présente différentes  problématiques, telles que la volonté des CA de bloquer l’élection d’administrateurs externes et la volonté des fonds activistes de remplacer certains administrateurs par des candidats favorables aux changements stratégiques souhaités.

Je crois que vous serez intéressés par une meilleure compréhension de ces pratiques, de plus en plus fréquentes, tolérées et non réglementées.

Qu’en pensez-vous ? Vos opinions sont les bienvenues et elles sont appréciées de nos lecteurs.

Bonne lecture !

Financing Corporate Elections

There is a battle in progress between activist hedge funds and public companies over so-called “golden leash” payments. This is where an activist shareholder running a proxy contest promises to pay her slate of director-candidates a supplemental compensation, over and above the ordinary director fees paid by the company to all directors. The purpose of the golden leash, according to the hedge funds that invented it, is to help activists recruit highly qualified people to challenge incumbent board members and, once on the board, to push for business decisions that will benefit all shareholders. Because the golden leash serves to enhance corporate democracy by helping activists mount effective proxy contests to challenge the incumbent board, the advisory services ISS and Glass Lewis have voiced support for the practice, as have some other commentators.

hqdefault

Many others, however, have expressed concern that the golden leash, by placing a director ‘on the payroll’ of a third party, creates an obvious incentive for her to favor the interests of her sponsor, even at the expense of the corporation or the shareholders as a whole. Thus Columbia Professor John Coffee has analogized the golden leash to a bribe, and UCLA Professor Stephen Bainbridge has called it illegal nonsense. On the suggestion of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz, dozens of public companies adopted bylaws that prohibited golden leash payments on their boards. Although most of those bylaws were later retracted in the face of ISS opposition, the battle still rages.

The latest front is at NASDAQ, which has not only proposed a new exchange rule that would require the disclosure of golden leash arrangements, but has also floated the idea of banning the golden leash entirely at NASDAQ-listed companies. The former proposal is currently pending before the SEC, which received thoughtful comments on both sides and which has called for more time to consider it.

So, should we ban the golden leash—or should we laud it? Both sides of the debate make strong arguments, but I think that neither has focused sufficient analytical attention on the nature of the golden leash itself. Before deciding whether to criticize or defend the golden leash, it is surely vital to understand it first, and I undertake that analysis in my latest article, Financing Corporate Elections. In my view, the golden leash is not, or not only, a payment for service performed as a director. Rather, the golden leash can best be understood as a form of campaign contribution paid by the activist sponsor to a director-candidate in a contested proxy contest. At its most basic, the golden leash is a payment of contingent consideration from an activist to a director-candidate in order to encourage the latter to launch a campaign for office; and the same activist is also willing to bear the costs of running the campaign. This fits well into the conceptual framework of third-party campaign finance, where one party pays the expenses of the political campaign of another.

Accepting the golden leash as a campaign contribution, what are the rules or limits on corporate campaign finance? Are there legal limits on who may contribute to a director-candidate or her campaign, or how much they may contribute? May an incumbent board impose such limits by amending its bylaws? What about disclosure? These are all new questions for corporate elections, and there is no case law on point. Yet analogous questions regarding political campaign finance have been analyzed and resolved for decades under the First Amendment and a line of doctrine derived from the landmark Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976. The so-called “Buckley framework” is premised in part on a concern that incumbent officeholders may impose such tight limits on campaign finance that they neutralize their political competitors and entrench the incumbents in office. In order to protect our republican form of democracy, Buckley thus imposes strict scrutiny, meaning the government must prove that its campaign finance law or regulation furthers a “compelling interest” and is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest.

I contend in Financing Corporate Elections that the underlying logic of the Buckley framework is transferrable to the corporate context via the famous Blasius doctrine of Delaware law. [1] Incumbent directors, just like incumbent politicians, have an interest in perpetuating themselves in office, and it is easy to imagine that an incumbent board might impose limits on financing corporate elections that have the effect of hindering insurgent campaigns (and thus entrenching the incumbents). I therefore argue that Blasius should be understood to call for a Buckley-like analysis of corporate campaign finance regulation. My proposed “Blasius-Buckley framework” would ask courts to strictly scrutinize board-imposed campaign finance regulations to determine whether they advance a compelling corporate interest in a narrowly tailored fashion.

How would this insight apply to the golden leash and efforts to limit or ban it? Since the golden leash is a form of campaign contribution, then a board-imposed bylaw that regulates it is just the type of campaign finance regulation that should, in my view, be analyzed using the Blasius-Buckley framework. The first issue under Blasius-Buckley is whether there is a compelling corporate interest in regulating the golden leash, and here the answer is almost certain to be yes. The golden leash poses a direct threat to the foundational corporate interest in having a board of directors whose loyalty unquestionably lies with the corporation and its shareholders. When one party makes large payments directly to a director-candidate, as in the golden leash, this clearly raises the specter that the candidate will follow the sponsor’s commands or advance its interests, even if doing so may not be in the best long-term interest of the corporation or its shareholders as a whole. A corporation surely has a compelling interest in preventing this sort of subversion.

The second prong of the Blasius-Buckley framework goes to narrow tailoring, and this part of the analysis would depend on the precise nature of the limits placed by the incumbent directors. An incumbent board that places too-strict limits on the golden leash may thereby hamstring their rivals and effectively entrench themselves in office, which would offend the core value of shareholder sovereignty. Hence, a bylaw that were to ban the golden leash entirely, as the model bylaw proposed by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz appears to do, would probably not pass muster under the narrow-tailoring prong of Blasius-Buckley. But less-draconian bylaws that merely seek to regulate the golden leash would probably survive. Disclosure requirements, reasonable limits on the size and form of golden leash payments, and restrictions on the source of such payments, would likely all qualify as narrowly tailored.

The full article is available for download here.

Endnotes:

[1]SeeBlasius Indus., Inc. v. Atlas Corp., 564 A.2d 651 (Del. Ch. 1988).

_______________________________

*Andrew A. Schwartz is an Associate Professor at University of Colorado Law School. This post is based on Professor Schwartz’s recent article published in The Journal of Corporation Law, available here. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, and Wei Jiang (discussed on the Forum here), The Myth that Insulating Boards Serves Long-Term Value by Lucian Bebchuk (discussed on the Forum here), and Servants of Two Masters? The Feigned Hysteria Over Activist-Paid Directors, by Yaron Nili (discussed on the Forum here).

Il ne faut pas attendre d’être à la retraite pour convoiter des postes sur des conseils d’administration !


Cet article de Avery Blank * publié dans le magazine Forbes le 8 juin 2016, est très court et tout à fait pertinent. Il ne faut pas attendre d’être à la retraite pour s’intéresser à des postes sur des conseils d’administration.

Comme le dit l’auteure, un mandat d’administrateur constitue une stratégie pour faire avancer sa carrière, plutôt qu’un plan de retraite…

On évoque trois étapes pour se démarquer dans sa carrière :

(1) le fait de siéger à un CA démontre que vous possédez du leadership et que vous faites preuve d’un bon jugement ;

(2) Vous contribuez à asseoir votre crédibilité et vous assurez votre visibilité au niveau de votre organisation ;

(3) Vous développez un réseau de contacts qui peut être mis à profit dans votre carrière.

Voici les points qui sont présentés avec un peu plus de détails dans l’article.

Bonne lecture !

 

Being A Board Member Is A Three-Step Strategy For Advancement, Not A Retirement Plan

 

Being a board member is an advancement strategy (Credit: Shutterstock).

 

In response to my How To Get On A Board By 30 article, one reader shared with me that “It’s about time that AARP membership is not required for board service.” She is right. Board membership is not a retirement plan, it is an advancement strategy.  Leveraging the years you have in front of you will help you to achieve your goals and then some. Being a board member is not the endgame, it is just the beginning.

Here are the three ways being a board member helps you to advance.

1. Positions you as a leader and assumes good judgment

When you are a member of a board, you are seen as a leader. You have been elected or appointed to oversee an organization. Someone else or a group of people has selected you to look after the best interest(s) of an organization. This is more than “hey, they like me.” They trust you. They are looking to you to make considered decisions and come to sensible conclusions. When others see you as a leader and having good judgment, they will respect and trust you too.

Having good judgment need not mean falling in line either. Take Facebook board member and venture capitalist Peter Thiel. Thiel admitted that he, independently, has funded lawsuits against news outlet Gawker Media, which goes against Facebook’s values in its users being able to express themselves and freely publish on the platform. Did Thiel exercise good judgment? Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said that Thiels’ actions have placed Facebook executives in a difficult position but that he will remain on the board. She suggested that independently-minded board members also make great board members. The question of whether Thiel exercised good judgment ultimately lies with Facebook shareholders who will have their annual stockholder meeting on June 20.

2. Adds credibility and visibility for you and your organization

Being a board member of an organization tells others that you are someone worthwhile knowing. People will reach out to you, wanting to get to know more about you, your career, and your role as a board member.

It also provides you with another outlet to become known. No longer are you just associated with the entity for whom you work, but you now are connected with another organization. Your name will become known in other circles. So, too, will your board membership help the company with which you currently work. Along with your name will be your affiliation. What is good for you is good for your company, as well. (If you work for an organization, review your organization’s Code of Conduct as many organizations will require approval by the conflicts committee before accepting a board appointment.)

This is critical for those, particularly women, who find it difficult to self-promote or advocate for themselves. Being a board member is a way for your accomplishment to do the talking for you.

 3. Develops connections that can be leveraged

You get more exposure to people and opportunities when you are a board member. Once you are a member of a board, it is not uncommon to start receiving invitations to sit on other boards. As a board member, you are a member of a club of individuals that have already been vetted (to a certain degree). It becomes easier and quicker to assume roles on other boards when you have one under your belt.

I hear many executives say that when they retire, they will sit on a board or two. Imagine the possibilities if they had assumed board memberships years or decades before retirement. Do not wait until you are at the end of your career to become a board member. Leverage your skills and expertise to find the right board opportunity now. The opportunities can be exponential.

_________________________

*Avery Blank is a millennial lawyer, strategist, and women’s advocate who holds seats on boards and councils.

La composition du conseil d’administration | Élément clé d’une saine gouvernance


Les investisseurs et les actionnaires reconnaissent le rôle prioritaire que les administrateurs de sociétés jouent dans la gouvernance et, conséquemment, ils veulent toujours plus d’informations sur le processus de nomination des administrateurs et sur la composition du conseil d’administration.

L’article qui suit, paru sur le Forum du Harvard Law School, a été publié par Paula Loop, directrice du centre de la gouvernance de PricewaterhouseCoopers. Il s’agit essentiellement d’un compte rendu sur l’évolution des facteurs clés de la composition des conseils d’administration. La présentation s’appuie sur une infographie remarquable.

Ainsi, on apprend que 41 % des campagnes menées par les activistes étaient reliées à la composition des CA, et que 20 % des CA ont modifié leur composition en réponse aux activités réelles ou potentielles des activistes.

L’article s’attarde sur la grille de composition des conseils relative aux compétences et habiletés requises. Également, on présente les arguments pour une plus grande diversité des CA et l’on s’interroge sur la situation actuelle.

Enfin, l’article revient sur les questions du nombre de mandats des administrateurs et de l’âge de la retraite de ceux-ci ainsi que sur les préoccupations des investisseurs eu égard au renouvellement et au rajeunissement des CA.

Le travail de renouvellement du conseil ne peut se faire sans la mise en place d’un processus d’évaluation complet du fonctionnement du CA et des administrateurs.

À mon avis, c’est certainement un article à lire pour bien comprendre toutes les problématiques reliées à la composition des conseils d’administration.

Bonne lecture !

Investors and Board Composition

 

sans-titre

 

In today’s business environment, companies face numerous challenges that can impact success—from emerging technologies to changing regulatory requirements and cybersecurity concerns. As a result, the expertise, experience, and diversity of perspective in the boardroom play a more critical role than ever in ensuring effective oversight. At the same time, many investors and other stakeholders are seeking influence on board composition. They want more information about a company’s director nominees. They also want to know that boards and their nominating and governance committees are appropriately considering director tenure, board diversity and the results of board self-evaluations when making director nominations. All of this is occurring within an environment of aggressive shareholder activism, in which board composition often becomes a central focus.

Shareholder activism and board composition

pwc-1

pwc-2

At the same time, a growing number of companies are adopting proxy access rules—allowing shareholders that meet certain ownership criteria to submit a limited number of director candidates for inclusion on the company’s annual proxy. It has become a top governance issue over the last two years, with many shareholders viewing it as a step forward for shareholder rights. And it’s another factor causing boards to focus more on their makeup.

So within this context, how should directors and investors be thinking about board composition, and what steps should be taken to ensure boards are adequately refreshing themselves?

Assessing what you have–and what you need

In a rapidly changing business climate, a high-performing board requires agile directors who can grasp concepts quickly. Directors need to be fiercely independent thinkers who consciously avoid groupthink and are able to challenge management—while still contributing to a productive and collegial boardroom environment. A strong board includes directors with different backgrounds, and individuals who understand how the company’s strategy is impacted by emerging economic and technological trends.

Sample board composition grid: What skills and attributes does your board need?

 

pwc-table

In assessing their composition, boards and their nominating and governance committees need to think critically about what skills and attributes the board currently has, and how they tie to oversight of the company. As companies’ strategies change and their business models evolve, it is imperative that board composition be evaluated regularly to ensure that the right mix of skills are present to meet the company’s current needs. Many boards conduct a gap analysis that compares current director attributes with those that it has identified as critical to effective oversight. They can then choose to fill any gaps by recruiting new directors with such attributes or by consulting external advisors. Some companies use a matrix in their proxy disclosures to graphically display to investors the particular attributes of each director nominee.

Board diversity is a hot-button issue

Diversity is a key element of any discussion of board composition. Diversity includes not only gender, race, and ethnicity, but also diversity of skills, backgrounds, personalities, opinions, and experiences. But the pace of adding more gender and ethnic diversity to public company boards has been only incremental over the past five years. For example, a December 2015 report from the US Government Accountability Office estimates that it could take four decades for the representation of women on US boards to be the same as men. [1] Some countries, including Norway, Belgium, and Italy, have implemented regulatory quotas to increase the percentage of women on boards.

Even if equal proportions of women and men joined boards each year beginning in 2015, GAO estimated that it could take more than four decades for women’s representation on boards to be on par with that of men’s.
—US Government Accountability Office, December 2015

According to PwC’s 2015 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, more than 80% of directors believe board diversity positively impacts board and company performance. But more than 70% of directors say there are impediments to increasing board diversity. [2] One of the main impediments is that many boards look to current or former CEOs as potential director candidates. However, only 4% of S&P 500 CEOs are female, [3] less than 2% of the Fortune 500 CEOs are Hispanic or Asian, and only 1% of the Fortune 500 CEOs are African-American. [4] So in order to get boards to be more diverse, the pool of potential director candidates needs to be expanded.

Is there diversity on US boards?

 

pwc-4

Source: Spencer Stuart US Board Index 2015, November 2015.

SEC rules require companies to disclose the backgrounds and qualifications of director nominees and whether diversity was a nomination consideration. In January 2016, SEC Chair Mary Jo White included diversity as a priority for the SEC’s 2016 agenda and suggested that the SEC’s disclosure rules pertaining to board diversity may be enhanced.

While those who aspire to become directors must play their part, the drive to make diversity a priority really has to come from board leadership: CEOs, lead directors, board chairs, and nominating and governance committee chairs. These leaders need to be proactive and commit to making diversity part of the company and board culture. In order to find more diverse candidates, boards will have to look in different places. There are often many untapped, highly qualified, and diverse candidates just a few steps below the C-suite, people who drive strategies, run large segments of the business, and function like CEOs.

How long is too long? Director tenure and mandatory retirement

The debate over board tenure centers on whether lengthy board service negatively impacts director independence, objectivity, and performance. Some investors believe that long-serving directors can become complacent over time—making it less likely that they will challenge management. However, others question the virtue of forced board turnover. They argue that with greater tenure comes good working relationships with stakeholders and a deep knowledge of the company. One approach to this issue is to strive for diversity of board tenure—consciously balancing the board’s composition to include new directors, those with medium tenures, and those with long-term service.

This debate has heated up in recent years, due in part to attention from the Council of Institutional Investors (the Council). In 2013, the Council introduced a revised policy statement on board tenure. While the policy “does not endorse a term limit,” [5] the Council noted that directors with extended tenures should no longer be considered independent. More recently, the large pension fund CalPERS has been vocal about tenure, stating that extended board service could impede objectivity. CalPERS updated its 2016 proxy voting guidelines by asking companies to explain why directors serving for over twelve years should still be considered independent.

We believe director independence can be compromised at 12 years of service—in these situations a company should carry out rigorous evaluations to either classify the director as non-independent or provide a detailed annual explanation of why the director can continue to be classified as independent.
— CalPERS Global Governance Principles, second reading, March 14, 2016

Factors in the director tenure and age debate

 

pwc-3

Source: Spencer Stuart US Board Index 2015, November 2015.

Many boards have a mandatory retirement age for their directors. However, the average mandatory retirement age has increased in recent years. Of the 73% of S&P 500 boards that have a mandatory retirement age in place, 97% set that age at 72 or older—up from 57% that did so ten years ago. Thirty-four percent set it at 75 or older. [6] Others believe that director term limits may be a better way to encourage board refreshment, but only 3% of S&P 500 boards have such policies. [7]

Investor concern

Some institutional investors have expressed concern about board composition and refreshment, and this increased scrutiny could have an impact on proxy voting decisions.

What are investors saying about board composition and refreshment?

 

pwc-table2

Sources: BlackRock, Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities, February 2015; California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Statement of Investment Policy for Global Governance, March 16, 2015; State Street Global Advisors’ US Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines, March 2015.

Proxy advisors’ views on board composition—recent developments

Proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services’s (ISS) governance rating system QuickScore 3.0 views tenure of more than nine years as potentially compromising director independence. ISS’s 2016 voting policy updates include a clarification that a “small number” of long-tenured directors (those with more than nine years of board service) does not negatively impact the company’s QuickScore governance rating, though ISS does not provide specifics on the acceptable quantity.

Glass Lewis’ updated 2016 voting policies address nominating committee performance. Glass Lewis may now recommend against the nominating and governance committee chair “where the board’s failure to ensure the board has directors with relevant experience, either through periodic director assessment or board refreshment, has contributed to a company’s poor performance.” Glass Lewis believes that shareholders are best served when boards are diverse on the basis of age, race, gender and ethnicity, as well as on the basis of geographic knowledge, industry experience, board tenure, and culture.

How can directors proactively address board refreshment?

The first step in refreshing your board is deciding whether to add a new board member and determining which director attributes are most important. One way to do this is to conduct a self-assessment. Directors also have a number of mechanisms to address board refreshment. For one, boards can consider new ways of recruiting director candidates. They can take charge of their composition through active and strategic succession planning. And they can also use robust self-assessments to gauge individual director performance—and replace directors who are no longer contributing.

  1. Act on the results of board assessments. Boards should use their annual self-assessment to help spark discussions about board refreshment. Having a robust board assessment process can offer insights into how the board is functioning and how individual directors are performing. The board can use this process to identify directors that may be underperforming or whose skills may no longer match what the company needs. It’s incumbent upon the board chair or lead director and the chair of the nominating and governance committee to address any difficult matters that may arise out of the assessment process, including having challenging conversations with underperforming directors. In addition, some investors are asking about the results of board assessments. CalPERS and CalSTRS have both called on boards to disclose more information about the impact of their self-assessments on board composition decisions. [8]
  2. Take a strategic approach to director succession planning. Director succession planning is essential to promoting board refreshment. But, less than half of directors “very much” believe their board is spending enough time on director succession. [9] In board succession planning, it’s important to think about the current state of the board, the tenure of current members, and the company’s future needs. Boards should identify possible director candidates based upon anticipated turnover and director retirements.
  3. Broaden the pool of candidates. Often, boards recruit directors by soliciting recommendations from other sitting directors, which can be a small pool. Forward-looking boards expand the universe of potential qualified candidates by looking outside of the C-suite, considering investor recommendations, and by looking for candidates outside the corporate world—from the retired military, academia, and large non-profits. This will provide a broader pool of individuals with more diverse backgrounds who can be great board contributors.

In sum, evaluating board composition and refreshing the board may be challenging at times, but it’s increasingly a topic of concern for many investors, and it’s critical to the board’s ability to stay current, effective, and focused on enhancing long-term shareholder value.

The complete publication, including footnotes and appendix, is available here.

Endnotes:

[1] United States Government Accountability Office, “Corporate Boards: Strategies to Address Representation of Women Include Federal Disclosure Requirements,” December 2015.
(go back)

[2] PwC, 2015 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, October 2015.
(go back)

[3] Catalyst, Women CEOs of the S&P 500, February 3, 2016.
(go back)

[4] “McDonald’s CEO to Retire; Black Fortune 500 CEOs Decline by 33% in Past Year,” DiversityInc, January 29, 2015; http://www.diversityinc.com/leadership/mcdonalds-ceo-retire-black-fortune-500-ceos-decline-33-past-year.
(go back)

[5] Amy Borrus, “More on CII’s New Policies on Universal Proxies and Board Tenure,” Council of Institutional Investors, October 1, 2013; http://www.cii.org/article_content.asp?article=208.
(go back)

[6] Spencer Stuart, 2015 US Board Index, November 2015.
(go back)

[7] Spencer Stuart, 2015 US Board Index, November 2015.
(go back)

[8] California State Teachers’ Retirement System Corporate Governance Principles, April 3, 2015, http://www.calstrs.com/sites/main/files/file-attachments/corporate_governance_principles_1.pdf; The California Public Employees’ Retirement System Global Governance Principles, Updated March 14, 2016, https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/board-agendas/201603/invest/item05a-02.pdf.
(go back)

[9] PwC, 2015 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, October 2015. www.pwc.com/us/GovernanceInsightsCenter.

________________________________

*Paula Loop is Leader of the Governance Insights Center at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on a PwC publication by Ms. Loop and Paul DeNicola. The complete publication, including footnotes and appendix, is available here.

Les firmes de conseillers en rémunération contribuent-elles à la mise en place de plans salariaux excessifs des PDG ?


Avez-vous confiance dans les conseillers en rémunération pour faire des propositions salariales qui reflètent vraiment la contribution des dirigeants, et qui sont nécessaires pour la rétention des personnes ?

Dans quelle mesure ceux-ci sont-ils responsables de l’augmentation, souvent excessive, des rémunérations des dirigeants ?

Une étude, à laquelle le professeur Omesh Kini de Georgia State University a contribué, montre que, bien que les consultants soient embauchés par les comités de ressources humaines des CA, ceux-ci peuvent subir l’influence indirecte de la direction.

L’auteur décrit différentes approches de firmes de conseillers dans l’établissement des plans de rémunérations des dirigeants. Les firmes prétendent se différencier en proposant des « packages » de rémunération censés aligner les objectifs des actionnaires sur ceux des administrateurs. Les consultants sont sensibles aux effets du « say on pay » et, par conséquent, tentent d’élaborer des programmes de rémunération bien étoffés.

Plusieurs auteurs avancent que les firmes de conseils en rémunération ont tendance à utiliser des échantillons de comparaisons salariales susceptibles de justifier des rémunérations élevées, sinon excessives. Les auteurs suggèrent que les consultants souhaitent obtenir d’autres contrats avec l’entreprise (« repeat business ») et, en ce sens, elles agissent en fonction de leurs intérêts d’affaires.

L’étude montre que, contrairement à la croyance populaire, les firmes de conseillers en rémunération n’opèrent pas de façon très différente les unes des autres. En réalité, elles ne se distinguent pas par des approches particulières.

Les résultats de l’étude montrent que le choix de la firme de consultants a peu d’importance lorsque l’entreprise est reconnue pour ses solides mécanismes de gouvernance. En revanche, si la gouvernance de l’entreprise laisse à désirer (plusieurs administrateurs non indépendants, comité de RH peu soucieux, PDG omniprésent au CA, manque de leadership du président du conseil, CA peu informé, etc.), les firmes de consultants en rémunération sont plus enclines à proposer des plans salariaux généreux.

Les conclusions de cette étude indiquent que les mécanismes de gouvernance sont les facteurs les plus révélateurs dans l’établissement d’une rémunération juste et adéquate et que le choix d’une firme de conseillers particulière est très secondaire, sinon sans réels effets.

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un résumé de l’article paru récemment sur le forum du Harvard Law School.

Bonne lecture !

Do Compensation Consultants Have Distinct Styles ?

 

In our paper, Do Compensation Consultants have Distinct Styles?, which was recently made public on SSRN, we investigate whether the choice of a specific compensation consultant affects the compensation level and structure of top managers. This question is crucially important because existing studies that examine the compensation of CEOs show that compensation schemes influence their behavior and, consequently, impact firm economic outcomes. Compensation consultants are typically hired by the board of directors’ compensation committee to help craft compensation policies for the top managers of the corporation. Although they serve at the behest of the board, consultants can imprint their own distinct styles in fashioning compensation policies for a firm. We examine whether individual compensation consultants influence compensation policies in unique ways, i.e., exhibit distinct “styles,” after controlling for the known economic determinants of these policies.

Compensation consultants strive to signal distinct styles in a positive manner via their own advertising. For example, Towers Watson claims to “bring a unique portfolio of resources” to the table, with an emphasis on aligning board actions with shareholders (e.g., avoiding “say on pay” disputes). [1] Conversely, the media has reported that consulting advice varies little. For example, Towers Perrin was accused in 1997 of giving nearly identical reports on workplace diversity to multiple consulting clients across different industries. [2] Towers Perrin’s response was that all of the clients reported in the article faced similar economic forces and, therefore, received similar advice. [3] Thus, the anecdotal evidence on consultant style is mixed.

cadres

Compensation consultants have been in the direct line of fire from academics, board members, and policy makers. For example, Bebchuk and Fried (2014) take the view that managers will influence the employment of consultants who are likely to recommend higher pay and use their advice to justify excessive compensation. They further argue that compensation consultants, driven by their cross-selling incentives and/or desire to obtain repeat business, design compensation plans that provide excessive pay to managers. Thus, they suggest that compensation consultants worsen, rather than alleviate, agency problems within firms. Board members also claim that compensation consultants are to blame for spiraling CEO pay (Workforce, February 7, 2008). Finally, the former SEC Commissioner Roel C. Campos in a speech stated, “Another significant driver of excessive CEO compensation is the use of compensation consultants.” He goes on to add, “It is extremely difficult to avoid using high comparables, and consultants can pretty much find high comparable income data to support paying a high amount to the CEO. This is the case even if the consultant reports directly to the board.”

Thus, it is an open question whether individual compensation consultants: (i) have distinct styles and managers/boards hire consultants with a specific style, (ii) do not have distinct styles, but instead give compensation advice based purely on economic characteristics, and (iii) respond in a distinct manner to the incentives that arise from the governance environment of the client firm and their own self-interest. We investigate these issues in our paper. In the process, we attempt to shed light on whether compensation consultants facilitate compensation arrangements that reflect a competitive equilibrium in the level of pay and an efficient equilibrium in the incentives provided by optimal contracts (the “efficient” view) or that compensation contracts are written by captive boards and pliant compensation consultants to enhance the welfare of powerful CEOs (the “agency” view).

Our empirical tests detect little evidence suggesting that individual consultants have their own distinct styles. This evidence can be interpreted in two different ways. One possibility is that compensation consultants do not have any specific style and are perfect substitutes for each other. Consequently, the choice of compensation consultant will not matter much because their compensation advice will be grounded in the economic determinants of compensation level and structure and, thus, will be quite similar. An alternative possibility is that compensation consultants do not have distinct styles, but will work in their own self-interest by reacting to the incentives provided by the hiring firm. We distinguish between these views by finding style-like effects for the subsample of client firms with weak governance mechanisms, but not for the subsample of client firms with strong governance mechanisms. These results suggest that the choice of individual consultant does not matter in firms that have strong governance mechanisms. For the weak governance firms, we find that the style-like effects are largely driven by firms that hire consultants who do not have any non-compensation related businesses. In this subsample, both the lead return on assets and Tobin’s q for their client firms are significantly lower for consultants who recommend a higher salary or higher salary percentage as a proportion of total compensation. We also document style-like effects for the subsample of client firms with whom the consultant has existing business relationships unrelated to compensation consulting (conflicted consultants). Further, when these conflicted consultants recommend higher equity-based compensation, the client firms’ values as measured by their lead Tobin’s q are significantly lower and that these client firms tend to have higher accruals.

Our overall conclusion is that it does not matter which compensation consultant is hired by client firms with strong governance mechanisms in place because they will get similar advice based on their economic characteristics and environment. We conjecture that these client firms may still decide to choose a more reputable consultant because of the stronger certification role it plays, but they will likely have to pay higher fees for the services of this consultant. However, consistent with the Bebchuk and Fried (2104) view that consultants can aggravate agency problems within firms, we do observe style-like effects and some resultant perverse outcomes when there is greater potential for managers to take actions in their self-interest and/or when consultants have weaker incentives to provide objective advice. Thus, based on our subsample analysis, we find evidence consistent with both the “efficient” and “agency” views of compensation contracts.

The full paper is available for download here.

__________________________

Endnotes:

[1] See Towers Watson’s 2015 brochure, “Putting Clients First.”
(go back)

[2] “Familiar Refrain: Consultant’s Advice on Diversity was Anything But Diverse…” Wall Street Journal, 3/11/1997.
(go back)

[3] “TP responds to WSJ allegations.” Consultants News 27, 4/1/1997.
(go back)

Les attentes à l’égard du rôle des administrateurs sont-elles irréalistes ?


Harvard Business Review vient de publier un excellent commentaire sur les attentes irréalistes exercées sur les conseils d’administration par les actionnaires, les autorités réglementaires, les investisseurs institutionnels et le public en général.

L’article des professeurs* Steven Boivie, Michael Bednar et Joel Andrus identifie trois obstacles qui empêchent les administrateurs de jouer adéquatement leurs rôles.

(1) La plupart des administrateurs sont également impliqués dans plusieurs autres fonctions de direction ou d’administration dans d’autres organisations.

(2) Les administrateurs ne doivent pas se mêler directement des affaires de la direction des entreprises.

(3) La complexité des grandes entreprises est telle qu’il est impossible pour un groupe d’administrateurs se réunissant environ dix fois par année de bien jouer leur rôle de surveillance.

Les auteurs suggèrent trois moyens pour lever, un tant soit peu, les barrières qui restreignent l’efficacité des administrateurs dans l’exécution de leurs rôles et responsabilités.

Je vous invite à prendre connaissance des conclusions de leur étude publiée dans Academy of management Annals.

Bonne lecture !

 

Boards Aren’t the Right Way to Monitor Companies

 

One of the key functions of a board of directors is to oversee the CEO to ensure that shareholders are getting the most out of their investment. This idea has led to regulation such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002), as well as requirements by the NYSE and NASDAQ that boards have a majority of independent directors and that members on the audit committee have financial expertise. Such rules rest on the premise that if we can just structure the board properly, management misconduct can largely be prevented. But is this a realistic expectation for directors? Maybe not.

1742912880_B978336891Z_1_20160408112809_000_G9C6I65NN_4-0Over the past few years there has been a growing gap between what shareholders and regulators expect of boards and what academic research shows they are capable of. For instance, consider what it means to be a director of a company like General Electric. GE states, “The primary role of GE’s Board of Directors is to oversee how management serves the interests of shareowners and other stakeholders.” However, GE’s annual revenues last year were $117 billion, and it had over 300,000 employees. The company provides services in a myriad of industries, such as health care, water treatment, aviation, and financing.

……

Taken together, much of the research we reviewed shows that these barriers are so prevalent and significant that consistent monitoring just isn’t very likely. Even when boards are filled with capable, motivated directors, we believe that there are simply too many barriers that prevent them from effectively protecting shareholders. In order to gain the full value from a board, we believe that shareholders and regulators need to focus on what boards can do, and then recalibrate their expectations.

First, we need to stop blaming boards for every failure. Too often the press, shareholders, and legislators blame corporate governance failures on directors, suggesting are unmotivated or unwilling to do their job properly. This was illustrated in 2012 when Groupon’s board came under fire for the company revising its earnings. JPMorgan Chase directors were similarly criticized for not preventing a $6 billion trading loss in the company’s investment office back in 2013.

Boards can do a better job in some cases, but these types of criticisms are often misguided. We have found that most directors are hardworking and capable — they’re just placed in a context that makes it virtually impossible for them to do what is expected of them.

Second, we need to focus more on boards’ ability to provide expert advice to CEOs based on their significant knowledge and experience. Board members often are able to provide insights that top executives may not have considered. Going back to GE’s board, most of the directors have expertise in a specific industry and can therefore draw on that experience to connect managers to external resources and knowledge that can benefit the firm. In addition to providing expert advice, boards can take a much more active role in guiding firms during times of crisis, such as when a CEO is being replaced, when the company is in financial distress, or when there is a significant merger or acquisition under consideration.

Third, if shareholders and regulators insist that boards must monitor, then we need to do a better job of removing the barriers in their way. For instance, if external job demands make it impossible for a director to devote enough time and mental energy to their duty as a director, perhaps we need to change our perception that the best directors are active CEOs of other firms. Maybe we also need to work to promote cultural change within boards through increased sharing of information and by using technology to allow them to meet more frequently.

Boards can and do play an important role in the success of companies. Instead of criticizing them for not meeting impractical expectations, we should value them sharing knowledge, providing advice, and lending legitimacy to firms by virtue of their reputations in the industry.

____________________________

Steven Boivie is an associate professor in the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. He received his Ph.D. in strategic management from the University of Texas at Austin.

Michael Bednar is an associate professor of Business Administration at the University of Illinois.

Joel Andrus is in the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University.

Le contrôle interne dans les OBNL | En reprise


Dans ce billet, je fais référence à un très bon article de Richard Leblanc, paru récemment dans CanadianBusiness.com, qui met l’accent sur la sensibilisation du Conseil à l’importance accrue du contrôle interne dans les OBNL.

L’auteur donne quelques bons exemples d’organisations où le contrôle interne a été défaillant et il montre que les OBNL sont particulièrement vulnérables à des malversations, surtout lorsque l’on sait que le contrôle interne est à peu près inexistant !

C’est la responsabilité du conseil d’administration de s’assurer que les bons contrôles sont en place. L’intérêt public l’exige !

Non-profit boards need a hands-on approach

 

imagesLHULJYGV

 

« Non-profit and charitable organizations have stretched resources, which makes them particularly vulnerable to fraudsters. The Salvation Army is currently going through such a situation after a whistleblower informed the organization that $2 million in donated toys had disappeared from—or wasn’t delivered to—their main warehouse in north Toronto over roughly two years ».

Article relié :
New LinkedIn Tool Helps Nonprofits Find Board Members (socialbarrel.com)

Orientation de Berkshire Hathaway eu égard à la sélection des administrateurs de sociétés


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, l’extrait d’une lettre que Warren Buffett fait parvenir annuellement à tous les actionnaires de Berkshire Hathaway. Les énoncés de cette lettre sont issus des rapports annuels de la société.

Cette lettre réfère aux orientations de l’entreprise eu égard à la sélection des administrateurs siégeant au conseil d’administration de Berkshire Hathaway, mais aussi, je suppose, aux nombreux conseils d’administration dans lesquels la société est représentée. Quels enseignements peut-on retirer de l’approche Berkshire, et qui peut expliquer, en partie, le succès phénoménal de cette entreprise ?

Ce que le comité de sélection recherche, ce sont des administrateurs foncièrement indépendants, c’est-à-dire des personnes qui ont la volonté, l’expérience et les compétences pour poser les questions clés aux membres de la direction. Selon Buffett la vraie indépendance est très rare.

Le secret pour assurer cette indépendance est de choisir des personnes dont les intérêts sont alignés sur les intérêts supérieurs des actionnaires, et solidement ancrés dans la détention d’une partie significative de l’actionnariat (pas d’options ou d’unités d’action avec restriction ou différées).

Également, la rémunération des administrateurs de Berkshire est minimale ; selon la doctrine Buffett, aucun administrateur ne devrait compter sur une rémunération susceptible de constituer une part importante de ses revenus et ainsi de compromettre son indépendance (on parle ici de rémunérations globales de l’ordre de 250 000 $ et plus…).

La sélection des administrateurs repose donc sur quatre critères fondamentaux : (1) l’orientation propriétaire (2) l’expérience et la connaissance des affaires (3) l’intérêt pour l’entreprise et (4) l’indépendance complète vis-à-vis du management.

La lettre se termine par ce propos empreint de sagesse… et de simplicité.

At Berkshire, we are in the specialized activity of running a business well, and therefore we seek business judgment.

Je suis reconnaissant à Henry D. Wolfe, investisseur privé dans le capital de risque et dans les fonds LBO, pour avoir partagé cette lettre sur LinkedIn.

Bonne lecture !

 

Warren Buffett: Annual Letter Comments Regarding the Selection of Corporate Directors

 

Berkshire Hathaway 2003 Annual Report: Pages 9-10: (bold not italics added)

 

True independence – meaning the willingness to challenge a forceful CEO when something is wrong or foolish – is an enormously valuable trait in a director. It is also rare. The place to look for it is among high-grade people whose interests are in line with those of rank-and-file shareholders – and are in line in a very big way.

We’ve made that search at Berkshire. We now have eleven directors and each of them, combined with members of their families, owns more than $4 million of Berkshire stock. Moreover, all have held major stakes in Berkshire for many years. In the case of six of the eleven, family ownership amounts to at least hundreds of millions and dates back at least three decades. All eleven directors purchased their holdings in the market just as you did; we’ve never passed out options or restricted shares. Charlie and I love such honest-to-God ownership. After all, who ever washes a rental car?

2014-02-52f337563c760

In addition, director fees at Berkshire are nominal (as my son, Howard, periodically reminds me). Thus, the upside from Berkshire for all eleven is proportionately the same as the upside for any Berkshire shareholder. And it always will be…

The bottom line for our directors: You win, they win big; you lose, they lose big. Our approach might be called owner-capitalism. We know of no better way to engender true independence. (This structure does not guarantee perfect behavior, however: I’ve sat on boards of companies in which Berkshire had huge stakes and remained silent as questionable proposals were rubber-stamped.)

In addition to being independent, directors should have business savvy, a shareholder orientation and a genuine interest in the company. The rarest of these qualities is business savvy – and if it is lacking, the other two are of little help. Many people who are smart, articulate and admired have no real understanding of business. That’s no sin; they may shine elsewhere. But they don’t belong on corporate boards.

 

Berkshire Hathaway 2006 Annual Report: Page 18: (bold not italics added)

 

In selecting a new director, we were guided by our long-standing criteria, which are that board members be owner-oriented, business-savvy, interested and truly independent. I say “truly” because many directors who are now deemed independent by various authorities and observers are far from that, relying heavily as they do on directors’ fees to maintain their standard of living. These payments, which come in many forms, often range between $150,000 and $250,000 annually, compensation that may approach or even exceed all other income of the “independent” director. And – surprise, surprise – director compensation has soared in recent years, pushed up by recommendations from corporate America’s favorite consultant, Ratchet, Ratchet and Bingo. (The name may be phony, but the action it conveys is not.)

Charlie and I believe our four criteria are essential if directors are to do their job – which, by law, is to faithfully represent owners. Yet these criteria are usually ignored. Instead, consultants and CEOs seeking board candidates will often say, “We’re looking for a woman,” or “a Hispanic,” or “someone from abroad,” or what have you. It sometimes sounds as if the mission is to stock Noah’s ark. Over the years I’ve been queried many times about potential directors and have yet to hear anyone ask, “Does he think like an intelligent owner?”

The questions I instead get would sound ridiculous to someone seeking candidates for, say, a football team, or an arbitration panel or a military command. In those cases, the selectors would look for people who had the specific talents and attitudes that were required for a specialized job. At Berkshire, we are in the specialized activity of running a business well, and therefore we seek business judgment.

Les dix articles américains les plus marquants en gouvernance corporative en 2015


L’organisation Corporate Practice Commentator vient de publier la liste des meilleurs articles en gouvernance, plus précisément ceux qui concernent le marché des actions.

La sélection a été faite par les professeurs qui se spécialisent en droit corporatif. Cette année plus de 540 articles ont été analysés.

La liste inclut trois articles de la Faculté du Harvard Law School issus du programme en gouvernance corporative dont Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates et Jesse Fried font partie.

Voici la liste en ordre alphabétique.

Bonne recherche !

 

 Les dix articles américains les plus marquants en gouvernance corporative en 2015

 

 

30441567-Nuage-de-mot-avec-la-gouvernance-d-entreprise-li-s-balises-Banque-d'images

 

 

  1. Bartlett, Robert P. III. Do Institutional Investors Value the Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action? Evidence from Investors’ Trading Behavior following Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. 44 J. Legal Stud. 183-227 (2015).
  2. Bebchuk, Lucian, Alon Brav and Wei Jiang. The Long-term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism. 115 Colum. L. Rev. 1085-1155 (2015).
  3. Bratton, William W. and Michael L. Wachter. Bankers and Chancellors. 93 Tex. L. Rev. 1-84 (2014).
  4. Cain, Matthew D. and Steven Davidoff Solomon. A Great Game: The Dynamics of State Competition and Litigation. 100 Iowa L. Rev. 465-500 (2015).
  5. Casey, Anthony J. The New Corporate Web: Tailored Entity Partitions and Creditors’ Selective Enforcement. 124 Yale L. J. 2680-2744 (2015).
  6. Coates, John C. IV. Cost-benefit Analysis of Financial Regulation: Case Studies and Implications. 124 Yale L .J. 882-1011 (2015).
  7. Edelman, Paul H., Randall S. Thomas and Robert B. Thompson. Shareholder Voting in an Age of Intermediary Capitalism. 87 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1359-1434 (2014).
  8. Fisch, Jill E., Sean J. Griffith and Steven Davidoff Solomon. Confronting the Peppercorn Settlement in Merger Litigation: An Empirical Analysis and a Proposal for Reform. 93 Tex. L. Rev. 557-624 (2015).
  9. Fried, Jesse M. The Uneasy Case for Favoring Long-term Shareholders. 124 Yale L. J. 1554-1627 (2015).
  10. Judge, Kathryn. Intermediary Influence. 82 U. Chi. L. Rev. 573-642 (2015).

Nature des relations entre le CA et la direction | Une saine tension est l’assurance d’une bonne gouvernance (en rappel)


 

Dans son édition d’avril 2016, le magazine Financier Worldwide présente une excellente analyse de la dynamique d’un conseil d’administration efficace. Pour l’auteur, il est important que le président du conseil soit habileté à exercer un niveau de saine tension entre les administrateurs et la direction de l’entreprise.

Il n’y a pas de place pour la complaisance au conseil. Les membres doivent comprendre que leur rôle est de veiller aux « intérêts supérieurs » de l’entreprise, notamment des propriétaires-actionnaires, mais aussi d’autres parties prenantes.

Le PDG de l’entreprise est recruté par le CA pour faire croître l’entreprise et exécuter une stratégie liée à son modèle d’affaires. Lui aussi doit travailler dans le meilleur intérêt des actionnaires… mais c’est la responsabilité fiduciaire du CA de s’en assurer en mettant en place les mécanismes de surveillance appropriés.

La théorie de l’agence stipule que le CA représente l’autorité souveraine de l’entreprise (puisqu’il possède la légitimité que lui confèrent les actionnaires). Le CA confie à un PDG (et à son équipe de gestion) le soin de réaliser les objectifs stratégiques retenus. Les deux parties — le Board et le Management — doivent bien comprendre leurs rôles respectifs, et trouver les bons moyens pour gérer la tension inhérente à l’exercice de la gouvernance et de la gestion.

Les administrateurs doivent s’efforcer d’apporter une valeur ajoutée à la gestion en conseillant la direction sur les meilleures orientations à adopter, et en instaurant un climat d’ouverture, de soutien et de transparence propice à la réalisation de performances élevées.

Il est important de noter que les actionnaires s’attendent à la loyauté des administrateurs ainsi qu’à leur indépendance d’esprit face à la direction. Les administrateurs sont élus par les actionnaires et sont donc imputables envers eux. C’est la raison pour laquelle le conseil d’administration doit absolument mettre en place un processus d’évaluation de ces membres et divulguer sa méthodologie.

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, l’article du Financier Worldwide qui illustre assez clairement les tensions existantes entre le CA et la direction, ainsi que les moyens proposés pour assurer la collaboration entre les deux parties.

J’ai souligné en gras les passages clés.

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont appréciés.

In this age of heightened risk, the need for effective governance has caused a dynamic shift in the role of the board of directors. Cyber security, rapid technological growth and a number of corporate scandals resulting from the financial crisis of 2008, all underscore the necessity of boards working constructively with management to ensure efficient oversight, rather than simply providing strategic direction. This is, perhaps, no more critical than in the middle market, where many companies often don’t have the resources larger organisations have to attract board members, but yet their size requires more structure and governance than smaller companies might need.

Following the best practices of high-performing boards can help lead to healthy tension between management and directors for improved results and better risk management. We all know conflict in the boardroom might sometimes be unavoidable, as the interests of directors and management don’t necessarily always align. Add various personalities and management styles to the mix, and discussions can sometimes get heated. It’s important to deal with situations when they occur in order to constructively manage potential differences of opinion to create a healthy tension that makes the entire organisation stronger.

Various conflict management styles can be employed to ensure that any potential boardroom tension within your organisation is healthy. If an issue seems minor to one person but vital to the rest of the group, accommodation can be an effective way to handle tension. If minor issues arise, it might be best to simply avoid those issues, whereas collaboration should be used with important matters. Arguably, this is the best solution for most situations and it allows the board to effectively address varying opinions. If consensus can’t be reached, however, it might become necessary for the chairman or the lead director to use authoritarian style to manage tension and make decisions. Compromise might be the best approach when the board is pressed for time and needs to take immediate action.

1353558_7_0ad2_miguel-angel-moratinos-ancien-ministre-desThe board chairperson can be integral to the resolution process, helping monitor and manage boardroom conflict. With this in mind, boards should elect chairs with the proven ability to manage all personality types. The chairperson might also be the one to initiate difficult conversations on topics requiring deeper scrutiny. That said, the chairperson cannot be the only enforcer; directors need to assist in conflict resolution to maintain a proper level of trust throughout the group. And the CEO should be proactive in raising difficult issues as well, and boards are typically most effective when the CEO is confident, takes the initiative in learning board best practices and works collaboratively.

Gone are the days of the charismatic, autocratic CEO. Many organisations have separated the role of CEO and chairperson, and have introduced vice chairs and lead directors to achieve a better balance of power. Another way to ensure a proper distribution of authority is for the board to pay attention to any red flags that might be raised by the CEO’s behaviour. For example, if a CEO feels they have all the answers, doesn’t respect the oversight of the board, or attempts to manage or marginalise the board, the chairperson and board members will likely need to be assertive, rather than simply following the CEO’s lead. Initially this might seem counterintuitive, however, in the long-run, this approach will likely create a healthier tension than if they simply ‘followed the leader’.

Everyone in the boardroom needs to understand their basic functions for an effective relationship -executives should manage, while the board oversees. In overseeing, the board’s major responsibilities include approving strategic plans and goals, selecting a CEO, determining a mission or purpose, identifying key risks, and providing oversight of the compliance of corporate policies and regulations. Clearly understanding the line between operations and strategy is also important.

Organisations with the highest performing boards are clear on the appropriate level of engagement for the companies they represent – and that varies from one organisation to the next. Determining how involved the board will be and what type of model the board will follow is key to effective governance and a good relationship with management. For example, an entity that is struggling financially might require a more engaged board to help put it back on track.

Many elements, such as tension, trust, diversity of thought, gender, culture and expertise can impact the delicate relationship between the board and management. Good communication is vital to healthy tension. Following best practices for interaction before, during and after board meetings can enhance conflict resolution and board success.

Before each board meeting, management should prepare themselves and board members by distributing materials and the board package in a timely manner. These materials should be reviewed by each member, with errors or concerns forwarded to the appropriate member of management, and areas of discussion highlighted for the chair. An agenda focused on strategic issues and prioritised by importance of matters can also increase productivity.

During the meeting, board members should treat one another with courtesy and respect, holding questions held until after presentations (or as the presenter directs). Board-level matters should be discussed and debated if necessary, and a consensus reached. Time spent on less strategic or pressing topics should be limited to ensure effective meetings. If appropriate, non-board-level matters might be handed to management for follow-up.

Open communication should also continue after board meetings. Sometimes topics discussed during board meetings take time to digest. When this happens, board members should connect with appropriate management team members to further discuss or clarify. There are also various board committee meetings that need to occur between board meetings. Board committees should be doing the ‘heavy lifting’ for the full board, making the larger group more efficient and effective. Other more informal interactions can further strengthen the relationship between directors and management.

Throughout the year, the board’s engagement with management can be broadened to include discussions with more key players. Gaining multiple perspectives by interacting with other areas of the organisation, such as general counsels, external and internal auditors, public relations and human resources, can help the board identify and address key risks. By participating in internal and external company events, board members get to know management and the company’s customers on a first-hand basis.

Of course, a strategy is necessary for the board as well, as regulatory requirements have increased, leading to greater pressure for high-quality performance. Effective boards maintain a plan for development and succession. They also implement CEO and board evaluation processes to ensure goals are being met and board members are performing optimally. In addition to the evaluation process, however, board members must hold themselves totally accountable for instilling trust in the boardroom.

Competition in today’s increasingly global and complex business environment is fierce, and calls for new approaches for success. Today’s boards need to build on established best practices and create good relationships with management to outperform competitors. The highest performing boards are clear on their functions, and understand the level of engagement appropriate for the companies they support. They are accountable and set the right tone, while being able to discern true goals and aspirations from trendiness. They are capable of understanding and dealing with the ‘big issues’ and are strategic in their planning and implementation of approaches that work for the companies they serve. With the ever-changing risk universe, the ability to work with the right amount of healthy tension is essential to effective governance.

_______________________________________

Hussain T. Hasan is on the Consulting Leadership team as well as a board member at RSM US LLP.

Quinze (15) astuces d’un CA performant


Aujourd’hui, je vous présente un article de Joanne Desjardins* qui agit comme auteure invitée sur mon blogue.

Elle a produit une synthèse des caractéristiques les plus importantes pour évaluer l’efficacité des conseils d’administration.

Je crois que les quinze éléments retenus sont très utiles pour mieux comprendre les bonnes pratiques des CA.

Bonne lecture !

 

 Quinze (15) astuces d’un CA performant

par

Joanne Desjardins

 

On mesure la performance de nos employés et de notre entreprise. Qu’en est-il de celle du CA ? Évaluez-vous la performance de votre CA ? Les CA performants s’évaluent et mettre en place les mesures requises pour optimiser leur performance et celles des administrateurs. Au surplus, des études démontrent qu’un CA performant a un impact positif sur la performance de l’entreprise.

Quelles sont les caractéristiques d’un CA performant ?

Nous décrivons, ci-après, les 15 caractéristiques des CA performants.

Full Spectrum Meeting

  1. Le CA doit rassembler des administrateurs aux compétences, expériences et connaissance présentant un juste équilibre, une diversité et une complémentarité avec celles de la haute direction et contribuant à alimenter la stratégie de l’organisation. Il n’y a pas de nombre idéal d’administrateurs. Cependant, un CA impair, composé de moins de 13 personnes fonctionne généralement mieux.
  2. Le CA assure l’intégration efficace des nouveaux administrateurs pour leur permettre de se familiariser avec leurs fonctions aisément (par ex. : programme d’accueil et d’intégration, coaching, mentorat, etc.).
  3. Les administrateurs sont dédiés et s’engagent à consacrer le temps, les efforts et l’énergie nécessaires pour agir efficacement dans le meilleur intérêt de l’entreprise. Ils partagent les valeurs de l’entreprise.
  4. Le CA désigne un président indépendant, mobilisateur, à l’écoute, qui a la capacité et le courage de concilier les points de vue divergents, de prendre des décisions difficiles et de régler les conflits. Le président gère efficacement les réunions du CA en favorisant un équilibre entre la spontanéité dans les échanges et le les règles de régie interne.
  5. Les rencontres sont programmées à l’avance. Les rencontres sont d’une durée raisonnable et à des intervalles réguliers. Le président du CA et le président de l’entreprise s’entendent sur l’ordre du jour de chaque réunion du CA et priorisent les sujets en fonction de la stratégie de l’entreprise et des risques.
  6. Les administrateurs démontrent une capacité d’écoute, de communication et de persuasion pour pouvoir participer activement et constructivement aux délibérations du CA. Ils ont le courage de poser des questions difficiles.
  7. Le CA ne s’ingère pas dans les opérations de l’entreprise (¨Nose in, fingers out¨).
  8. La haute direction transmet aux administrateurs, en temps opportun, des informations fiables dont l’exhaustivité, la forme et la qualité sont appropriées pour permettre aux administrateurs de remplir adéquatement leurs fonctions.
  9. Le rôle, les responsabilités et les attentes envers les administrateurs, les comités et le CA sont clairement définis. Les administrateurs comprennent les obligations de fiduciaires qui leur incombent et les implications qui en découlent.
  10. Le CA a mis en place une procédure d’évaluation rigoureuse, fiable et confidentielle. Les attentes envers les administrateurs ainsi que les critères d’évaluation sont clairs et connus de tous. En fonction des résultats de l’évaluation, des mesures sont prises pour améliorer l’efficacité du CA et des administrateurs (par ex. : formation, outils, ajustement dans les pratiques, etc.).
  11. Le CA participe activement à la sélection et à l’évaluation du rendement du président de l’entreprise.
  12. Le CA participe à l’élaboration de la stratégie de l’entreprise et approuve le plan stratégique. Une fois approuvé, le CA suit l’état d’avancement du plan stratégique et les risques inhérents.
  13. Un système robuste de gestion des risques a été mis en place et la responsabilité́ de la surveillance des risques relève d’un comité du CA. Les administrateurs connaissent les principaux risques pouvant influencer la réalisation de la stratégie et le plan de mitigation.
  14. Les administrateurs mettent à jour et actualisent leurs compétences et connaissances.
  15. On planifie la relève pour veiller au renouvellement du CA et assurer un équilibre entre les administrateurs expérimentés ayant une connaissance approfondie de l’organisation et les nouveaux, apportant une perspective différente aux problématiques.

___________________________________

Joanne Desjardins, LL.B., MBA, ASC, CRHA* est présidente-fondatrice de Keyboard, une firme spécialisée en stratégie et gouvernance. Elle est également conférencière et bloggeuse en stratégie et en gouvernance. Elle rédige actuellement un livre sur les meilleures pratiques en gouvernance.

Taille du CA, limite d’âge et durée des mandats des administrateurs


Comme je l’ai déjà évoqué dans plusieurs autres billets, il faut réfléchir très sérieusement à la taille du CA, à la limite d’âge des administrateurs ainsi qu’à la durée de leurs mandats.

Eu égard à la taille du CA, on note que les membres de conseils de petite taille :

(1) sont plus engagés dans les affaires de l’entité

(2) sont plus portés à aller en profondeur dans l’analyse stratégique

(3) entretiennent des relations plus fréquentes et plus harmonieuses avec la direction

(4) ont plus de possibilités de communiquer entre eux

(5) exercent une surveillance plus étroite des activités de la direction

(6) sont plus décisifs, cohésif et impliqués.

On constate également une tendance lourde en ce qui regarde le nombre de mandats des administrateurs de sociétés, mais que ce changement ne se fait pas sans heurt.

Plusieurs pensent que, malgré certains avantages évidents à avoir des administrateurs séniors sur les CA, cette situation est un frein à la diversité et au renouvellement des générations au sein des conseils d’administration. Je crois que les CA devraient se doter d’une politique de limite d’âge pour les administrateurs ainsi que d’une limite au cumul des mandats ?

Les conseils d’administration devraient se préoccuper de ces questions afin :

(1) d’accroître la diversité dans la composition du conseil

(2) de faciliter la nomination de femmes au sein des CA

(3) d’assurer une plus grande indépendance des membres du conseil

(4) d’assurer la relève et l’apport d’idées neuves sur la gouvernance et les stratégies

(5) d’éviter que des administrateurs peu engagés s’incrustent dans leurs postes.

À cet égard, voici certains extraits d’études qui présentent les changements au Canada en 2015 :

Cumul des mandats d’administrateur

« Dorénavant, un administrateur qui est chef de la direction est considéré comme cumulant trop de mandats s’il siège au conseil de plus d’une société ouverte en plus du conseil d’administration de la société qui l’emploie (auparavant, il fallait que ce soit plus de deux sociétés). Un administrateur qui n’est pas chef de la direction cumule trop de mandats lorsqu’il siège à plus de quatre conseils d’administration de sociétés ouvertes (auparavant, c’était plus de six sociétés) ».

Renouvellement des conseils d’administration

Les Autorités canadiennes en valeurs mobilières (ACVM) ont révélé que « seulement 19 % des émetteurs examinés avaient adopté une combinaison quelconque de limites à la durée des mandats et/ou de limite d’âge… Toutefois, la grande majorité des émetteurs ne se sont dotés d’aucun mécanisme officiel pour le renouvellement du conseil, à part leur processus d’évaluation des administrateurs ».

Notons que les émetteurs assujettis sont tenus de divulguer les limites à la durée du mandat des administrateurs ainsi que les mécanismes de renouvellement du conseil. S’ils ne se conforment pas, ils doivent en expliquer les raisons.

En France, par exemple, un administrateur qui a siégé à un conseil pendant plus de 12 ans n’est plus considéré comme étant indépendant. Au Royaume-Uni, le conseil doit déclarer publiquement pourquoi il croit qu’un administrateur qui a siégé plus de 9 ans est toujours considéré comme étant indépendant.

Beaucoup de conseils au Canada estiment que les limites de mandat servent un objectif, 56 % des sociétés du Canadian Spencer Stuart Board Index (CSSBI) indiquant qu’elles recourent volontairement à des limites d’âge et de mandat. Selon une récente étude de Korn Ferry International/Patrick O’Callaghan and Associates, les limites de mandat pour les entreprises canadiennes inscrites en bourse ayant été sondées oscillent entre sept et vingt ans, 53 % d’entre elles présentant une limite de mandat de 15 ans.

Voici quelques billets publiés sur mon blogue qui peuvent être utiles à un président de conseil aux prises avec ces questions délicates.

 

En rappel | Les C.A de petites tailles performent mieux !

Réflexions sur les limites d’âge des membres de conseil d’administration et sur la durée des mandats

Faut-il limiter le nombre de mandats des administrateurs ?

 

Également, j’ai joint le Rapport de Davies sur la gouvernance | Décembre 2015 au Canada en 2015.

Enfin, voici deux articles qui devraient alimenter vos réflexions sur le sujet.

Le premier, Company directors getting older – fewer age limits, a été publié par Andrew Frye et Jeff Green dans le San Francisco Chronicle. Le second, Board Tenure: The New Hot Governance Topic ?, a été publié par Broc Romanek sur le blogue de CorporateCounsel.net. Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, des extraits de ces deux références.

 

Company directors getting older – fewer age limits

 

Buffett’s influence

Berkshire’s willingness to retain directors in their ninth decades reflects Buffett’s influence on the firm and a national trend toward older boards. About 15 percent of directors at companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index are older than 69, compared with 9.8 percent in 2002, according to executive-compensation benchmarking firm Equilar. Proxy filings show 52 directors are age 80 or older.

« You can have great 85-year-olds and horrible 55-year-olds, » said Anne Sheehan, director of corporate governance for the $155 billion California State Teachers’ Retirement System. « A lot of this depends on the 80-year-old, because I’d love to have Warren Buffett on any board. »

Boardroom age limits are less prevalent and set higher than they were five years ago, according to the latest report on director trends by executive recruitment company Spencer Stuart. Companies use age limits to promote turnover and assure investors that management is getting new ideas. Those goals may instead be achieved through term limits, Sheehan said.

« You have to refresh the board, whether it’s through term limits or through age limits, » said Charles Elson, director of the University of Delaware’s Center for Corporate Governance.

 

_______________________________________________________

Board Tenure: The New Hot Governance Topic ?

At a recent event, a member joked with me that his CEO was asked: « What was the average age of directors on his board? » – and the CEO answered: « Dead. » Based on recent stats, it appears that many directors are comfortable as turnover is quite low these days. This is reflected in Jim Kristie’s Directors & Boards piece entitled « Troubling Trend: Low Board Turnover. » As Jim points out, a director with a certain background might make sense for the company now – but might not ten years down the road as the circumstances change.

board diversity.jpg

Perhaps even more important is the independence issue – is a director who sits on the board for several decades likely to still be independent after such a long tenure (see this WSJ article about the 40-year club)? Does it matter if management turns over during the director’s tenure? And if so, how much? These are issues that are being debated. What is your take?

As blogged by Davis Polk’s Ning Chiu, CII is considering policy changes linking director tenure with director independence, under which it would ask boards to consider a director’s years of service in determining director independence. According to the proposed policy, 26% of all Russell 3,000 directors have served more than 10 years and 14% have served more than 15 years. CII would not advocate for any specific tenure, unlike the European Commission, which advises that non-executive directors serve no more than 12 years. Note that under the UK’s « comply or explain » framework, companies need to disclose why a director continues to serve after being on the board nine years. I have heard that seven years is the bar in Russia.

How Does Low Board Turnover Impact Board Diversity?

Related to proper board composition is the issue of whether low board turnover is just one more factor that stifles board diversity. As well documented in numerous studies (see our « Board Diversity » Practice Area), gender diversity on boards has essentially flat-lined over the past decade – and actually has regressed in some areas. This is a real-world problem as it’s been proven that differing views on a board lead to greater corporate performance. To get boards back on track, I do think bold ideas need to be implemented – and plenty are out there, such as this one. I can’t believe that more investors haven’t been clamoring for greater diversity – but I do believe that day is near…

Bonne lecture !

Une saine tension entre le CA et la direction | Gage d’une bonne gouvernance 


Dans son édition d’avril 2016, le magazine Financier Worldwide présente une excellente analyse de la dynamique d’un conseil d’administration efficace. Pour l’auteur, il est important que le président du conseil soit habileté à exercer un niveau de saine tension entre les administrateurs et la direction de l’entreprise.

Il n’y a pas de place pour la complaisance au conseil. Les membres doivent comprendre que leur rôle est de veiller aux « intérêts supérieurs » de l’entreprise, notamment des propriétaires-actionnaires, mais aussi d’autres parties prenantes.

Le PDG de l’entreprise est recruté par le CA pour faire croître l’entreprise et exécuter une stratégie liée à son modèle d’affaires. Lui aussi doit travailler dans le meilleur intérêt des actionnaires… mais c’est la responsabilité fiduciaire du CA de s’en assurer en mettant en place les mécanismes de surveillance appropriés.

La théorie de l’agence stipule que le CA représente l’autorité souveraine de l’entreprise (puisqu’il possède la légitimité que lui confèrent les actionnaires). Le CA confie à un PDG (et à son équipe de gestion) le soin de réaliser les objectifs stratégiques retenus. Les deux parties — le Board et le Management — doivent bien comprendre leurs rôles respectifs, et trouver les bons moyens pour gérer la tension inhérente à l’exercice de la gouvernance et de la gestion.

Les administrateurs doivent s’efforcer d’apporter une valeur ajoutée à la gestion en conseillant la direction sur les meilleures orientations à adopter, et en instaurant un climat d’ouverture, de soutien et de transparence propice à la réalisation de performances élevées.

Il est important de noter que les actionnaires s’attendent à la loyauté des administrateurs ainsi qu’à leur indépendance d’esprit face à la direction. Les administrateurs sont élus par les actionnaires et sont donc imputables envers eux. C’est la raison pour laquelle le conseil d’administration doit absolument mettre en place un processus d’évaluation de ces membres et divulguer sa méthodologie.

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, l’article du Financier Worldwide qui illustre assez clairement les tensions existantes entre le CA et la direction, ainsi que les moyens proposés pour assurer la collaboration entre les deux parties.

J’ai souligné en gras les passages clés.

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont appréciés.

In this age of heightened risk, the need for effective governance has caused a dynamic shift in the role of the board of directors. Cyber security, rapid technological growth and a number of corporate scandals resulting from the financial crisis of 2008, all underscore the necessity of boards working constructively with management to ensure efficient oversight, rather than simply providing strategic direction. This is, perhaps, no more critical than in the middle market, where many companies often don’t have the resources larger organisations have to attract board members, but yet their size requires more structure and governance than smaller companies might need.

Following the best practices of high-performing boards can help lead to healthy tension between management and directors for improved results and better risk management. We all know conflict in the boardroom might sometimes be unavoidable, as the interests of directors and management don’t necessarily always align. Add various personalities and management styles to the mix, and discussions can sometimes get heated. It’s important to deal with situations when they occur in order to constructively manage potential differences of opinion to create a healthy tension that makes the entire organisation stronger.

Various conflict management styles can be employed to ensure that any potential boardroom tension within your organisation is healthy. If an issue seems minor to one person but vital to the rest of the group, accommodation can be an effective way to handle tension. If minor issues arise, it might be best to simply avoid those issues, whereas collaboration should be used with important matters. Arguably, this is the best solution for most situations and it allows the board to effectively address varying opinions. If consensus can’t be reached, however, it might become necessary for the chairman or the lead director to use authoritarian style to manage tension and make decisions. Compromise might be the best approach when the board is pressed for time and needs to take immediate action.

April 2016 Issue

The board chairperson can be integral to the resolution process, helping monitor and manage boardroom conflict. With this in mind, boards should elect chairs with the proven ability to manage all personality types. The chairperson might also be the one to initiate difficult conversations on topics requiring deeper scrutiny. That said, the chairperson cannot be the only enforcer; directors need to assist in conflict resolution to maintain a proper level of trust throughout the group. And the CEO should be proactive in raising difficult issues as well, and boards are typically most effective when the CEO is confident, takes the initiative in learning board best practices and works collaboratively.

Gone are the days of the charismatic, autocratic CEO. Many organisations have separated the role of CEO and chairperson, and have introduced vice chairs and lead directors to achieve a better balance of power. Another way to ensure a proper distribution of authority is for the board to pay attention to any red flags that might be raised by the CEO’s behaviour. For example, if a CEO feels they have all the answers, doesn’t respect the oversight of the board, or attempts to manage or marginalise the board, the chairperson and board members will likely need to be assertive, rather than simply following the CEO’s lead. Initially this might seem counterintuitive, however, in the long-run, this approach will likely create a healthier tension than if they simply ‘followed the leader’.

Everyone in the boardroom needs to understand their basic functions for an effective relationship -executives should manage, while the board oversees. In overseeing, the board’s major responsibilities include approving strategic plans and goals, selecting a CEO, determining a mission or purpose, identifying key risks, and providing oversight of the compliance of corporate policies and regulations. Clearly understanding the line between operations and strategy is also important.

Organisations with the highest performing boards are clear on the appropriate level of engagement for the companies they represent – and that varies from one organisation to the next. Determining how involved the board will be and what type of model the board will follow is key to effective governance and a good relationship with management. For example, an entity that is struggling financially might require a more engaged board to help put it back on track.

Many elements, such as tension, trust, diversity of thought, gender, culture and expertise can impact the delicate relationship between the board and management. Good communication is vital to healthy tension. Following best practices for interaction before, during and after board meetings can enhance conflict resolution and board success.

Before each board meeting, management should prepare themselves and board members by distributing materials and the board package in a timely manner. These materials should be reviewed by each member, with errors or concerns forwarded to the appropriate member of management, and areas of discussion highlighted for the chair. An agenda focused on strategic issues and prioritised by importance of matters can also increase productivity.

During the meeting, board members should treat one another with courtesy and respect, holding questions held until after presentations (or as the presenter directs). Board-level matters should be discussed and debated if necessary, and a consensus reached. Time spent on less strategic or pressing topics should be limited to ensure effective meetings. If appropriate, non-board-level matters might be handed to management for follow-up.

Open communication should also continue after board meetings. Sometimes topics discussed during board meetings take time to digest. When this happens, board members should connect with appropriate management team members to further discuss or clarify. There are also various board committee meetings that need to occur between board meetings. Board committees should be doing the ‘heavy lifting’ for the full board, making the larger group more efficient and effective. Other more informal interactions can further strengthen the relationship between directors and management.

Throughout the year, the board’s engagement with management can be broadened to include discussions with more key players. Gaining multiple perspectives by interacting with other areas of the organisation, such as general counsels, external and internal auditors, public relations and human resources, can help the board identify and address key risks. By participating in internal and external company events, board members get to know management and the company’s customers on a first-hand basis.

Of course, a strategy is necessary for the board as well, as regulatory requirements have increased, leading to greater pressure for high-quality performance. Effective boards maintain a plan for development and succession. They also implement CEO and board evaluation processes to ensure goals are being met and board members are performing optimally. In addition to the evaluation process, however, board members must hold themselves totally accountable for instilling trust in the boardroom.

Competition in today’s increasingly global and complex business environment is fierce, and calls for new approaches for success. Today’s boards need to build on established best practices and create good relationships with management to outperform competitors. The highest performing boards are clear on their functions, and understand the level of engagement appropriate for the companies they support. They are accountable and set the right tone, while being able to discern true goals and aspirations from trendiness. They are capable of understanding and dealing with the ‘big issues’ and are strategic in their planning and implementation of approaches that work for the companies they serve. With the ever-changing risk universe, the ability to work with the right amount of healthy tension is essential to effective governance.

_______________________________________

Hussain T. Hasan is on the Consulting Leadership team as well as a board member at RSM US LLP.

Les dix (10) billets vedettes sur mon blogue en gouvernance au premier trimestre de 2016


Voici une liste des billets en gouvernance les plus populaires publiés sur mon blogue au cours du dernier trimestre se terminant le 31 mars 2016.

Cette liste constitue, en quelque sorte, un sondage de l’intérêt manifesté par des milliers de personnes sur différents thèmes de la gouvernance des sociétés. On y retrouve des points de vue bien étayés sur des sujets d’actualité relatifs aux conseils d’administration.

Que retrouve-t-on dans ce blogue et quels en sont les objectifs ?

Ce blogue fait l’inventaire des documents les plus pertinents et les plus récents en gouvernance des entreprises. La sélection des billets est le résultat d’une veille assidue des articles de revue, des blogues et des sites web dans le domaine de la gouvernance, des publications scientifiques et professionnelles, des études et autres rapports portant sur la gouvernance des sociétés, au Canada et dans d’autres pays, notamment aux États-Unis, au Royaume-Uni, en France, en Europe, et en Australie.

ECH20163057_1

Je fais un choix parmi l’ensemble des publications récentes et pertinentes et je commente brièvement la publication.

L’objectif de ce blogue est d’être la référence en matière de documentation en gouvernance dans le monde francophone, en fournissant au lecteur une mine de renseignements récents (les billets) ainsi qu’un outil de recherche simple et facile à utiliser pour répertorier les publications en fonction des catégories les plus pertinentes.

Quelques statistiques à propos du blogue Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé

Ce blogue a été initié le 15 juillet 2011 et, à date, il a accueilli plus de 170 000 visiteurs. Le blogue a progressé de manière tout à fait remarquable et, au 31 décembre 2015, il était fréquenté par plusieurs milliers de visiteurs par mois. Depuis le début, j’ai œuvré à la publication de 1 305 billets.

En 2016, j’estime qu’environ 5 000 personnes par mois visiteront le blogue afin de s’informer sur diverses questions de gouvernance. À ce rythme, on peut penser qu’environ 60 000 personnes visiteront le site du blogue en 2016. 

On note que 44 % des billets sont partagés par l’intermédiaire de LinkedIn et 45 % par différents moteurs de recherche. Les autres réseaux sociaux (Twitter, Facebook et Tumblr) se partagent 11 % des références.

Voici un aperçu du nombre de visiteurs par pays :

  1. Canada (64 %)
  2. France, Suisse, Belgique (20 %)
  3. Maghreb (Maroc, Tunisie, Algérie) (5 %)
  4. Autres pays de l’Union européenne (3 %)
  5. États-Unis (3 %)
  6. Autres pays de provenance (5 %)

Il y a deux ans, le blogue Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé a été inscrit dans deux catégories distinctes du concours canadien Made in Blog (MiB Awards) : Business et Marketing et médias sociaux. Le blogue a été retenu parmi les dix (10) finalistes à l’échelle canadienne dans chacune de ces catégories, le seul en gouvernance. Il n’y avait pas de concours en 2015.

Vos commentaires sont toujours grandement appréciés. Je réponds toujours à ceux-ci.

 

N.B. Vous pouvez vous inscrire ou faire des recherches en allant au bas de cette page.

 

Bonne lecture !

1.      Cinq (5) principes simples et universels de saine gouvernance ?
2.      Comment un bon président de CA se prépare-t-il pour sa réunion ?
3.      Composition du conseil d’administration d’OSBL et recrutement d’administrateurs | Une primeur
4.      Le rôle du comité exécutif versus le rôle du conseil d’administration
5.      Document complet de KPMG sur les bonnes pratiques de gouvernance et de gestion d’un CA | The Directors Toolkit
6.      Une formation en éthique 2.0 pour les conseils d’administration
7.      La nouvelle réalité des comités de gouvernance des conseils d’administration
8.      Dix thèmes majeurs pour les administrateurs en 2016 | Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance
9.      Un guide essentiel pour comprendre et enseigner la gouvernance | En reprise

10.  L’utilisation des huis clos lors des sessions de C.A.

L’activisme actionnarial vu selon un mécanisme correctif de la gouvernance


Le séminaire à la maîtrise de Gouvernance de l’entreprise (DRT-7022) dispensé  par Ivan Tchotourian*, professeur en droit des affaires de la Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval, entend apporter aux étudiants une réflexion originale sur les liens entre la sphère économico-juridique, la gouvernance des entreprises et les enjeux sociétaux actuels.

Le séminaire s’interroge sur le contenu des normes de gouvernance et leur pertinence dans un contexte de profonds questionnements des modèles économique et financier. Dans le cadre de ce séminaire, il est proposé aux étudiants depuis l’hiver 2014 d’avoir une expérience originale de publication de leurs travaux de recherche qui ont porté sur des sujets d’actualité de gouvernance d’entreprise.

Ce billet veut contribuer au partage des connaissances en gouvernance à une large échelle. Le présent billet est une fiche de lecture réalisée par messieurs Gabriel Béliveau et Carl Boulé sur le sujet de l’activisme actionnarial.

M. Gabriel Béliveau et M. Carl Boulé ont travaillé sur un article de référence des spécialistes du droit des sociétés que sont Paul Rose et Bernard Sharfman intitulé : « Shareholder Activism as a Corrective Mechanism in Corporate Governance ».

Dans le cadre de ce billet, les auteurs reviennent sur le texte pour le présenter, le mettre en perspective et y apporter un regard critique.

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont appréciés.

 

L’activisme actionnarial vu selon un mécanisme correctif de la gouvernance

 

Retour sur Shareholder Activism as a Corrective Mechanism in Corporate Governance de Paul Rose et Bernard Sharfman

par

Gabriel Béliveau et Carl Boulé

 

L’article « Shareholder Activism as a Corrective Mechanism in Corporate Governance » [1] rédigé par Rose et Sharfman s’inscrit dans le débat sur l’activisme actionnarial, notion réunissant « (…) toute action d’un actionnaire ou d’un groupe d’actionnaires visant à influencer une compagnie publique, sans pour autant tenter d’en prendre le contrôle » [2]. Plus précisément, les auteurs abordent la question de déterminer comment l’activisme actionnarial peut être employé afin de favoriser une gouvernance plus efficace. À cet égard, ils identifient une forme d’activisme permettant d’atteindre cet objectif : l’« offensive shareholder activism ».

Retour en terre connue

7632934-11794551

Les professeurs Rose et Sharfman amorcent leur analyse en portant leur attention sur l’encadrement juridique du pouvoir de gestion d’une société. Ils constatent que ce pouvoir est fortement centralisé entre les mains du conseil d’administration (ci-après « CA ») dont les membres sont élus périodiquement par les actionnaires. En raison d’une importante déférence accordée en sa faveur par le droit, le CA bénéficie d’une large marge de manœuvre dans la gestion de la société. Cette déférence a toutefois pour inconvénient de cautionner certaines erreurs que pourraient commettre les administrateurs. Elle laisse également planer un risque d’opportunisme de la part des membres du CA qui pourraient être tentés de faire primer leurs intérêts sur ceux de la société.

Offensive shareholder activism ?

À l’aune de ces constats, les auteurs affirment que l’offensive shareholder activism entraîne un partage temporaire des pouvoirs de gestion qui permettrait de minimiser les inconvénients découlant de la gestion centralisée par le CA. Les auteurs poursuivent en expliquant que les résultats de l’activisme actionnarial dépendent grandement du type d’actionnaire qui est impliqué. Or, ils identifient cinq types d’actionnaires : les « insiders », les « liquidity traders », les « noise traders », les « market makers » et les « information traders ». Les insiders sont impliqués dans la gestion de l’entreprise et ont donc un devoir de réserve, ce qui fait qu’ils ne participent pas à l’activisme actionnarial. Les liguidity traders, les noise traders et les market makers ont tous des approches et des raisons d’investir différentes, mais se rejoignent par leur déficit informationnel à l’égard de certains enjeux pouvant concerner la société dans laquelle ils investissent. Ils ne sont donc habituellement pas impliqués efficacement dans l’activisme actionnarial et, pourtant, constituent souvent le groupe d’actionnaires pouvant faire pencher la balance lors de l’élection des administrateurs. Finalement, les information traders sont les actionnaires qui accordent le plus d’intérêt envers la gestion de l’entreprise. Il s’agit habituellement des investisseurs institutionnels, plus particulièrement, ceux appliquant des principes de gestion alternative (les « Hedge funds »). Ce sont ces derniers qui initient l’offensive shareholder activism.

Utilité de l’offensive shareholder activism

L’offensive shareholder activism résulte de la constatation par les cinq catégories d’actionnaires présentés ci-dessus que certains éléments internes d’une société l’empêchent de maximiser ses profits. Les activistes spécialisés de l’offensive shareholder activism détiennent parfois des informations précises concernant les tendances du marché ou la situation de concurrents, leur permettant de proposer des changements bénéfiques pour la société. Ces recommandations pourront ainsi contribuer à éclairer le CA, lui permettant de prendre des décisions plus éclairées. En effet, il arrive que le CA, trop concentré sur la gestion des affaires courantes et influencé par des considérations internes (gestion des ressources humaines, image de l’entreprise, vision des gestionnaires), ignore des opportunités stratégiques de croissance telles que la délocalisation, l’achat/vente, la restructuration ou l’établissement de mesures de responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise. Des études empiriques ont également démontré que l’offensive shareholder activism s’avère être une forme d’activisme actionnarial ayant un effet positif sur la valeur des actions [3]. Elles démontrent également que l’offensive shareholder activism permet l’accumulation de nouvelles informations utiles dans le processus de prise de décision [4].

Critiques de l’offensive shareholder activism

Les auteurs Rose et Sharfman remarquent que plusieurs spécialistes critiquent le concept général d’activisme actionnarial. En réponse aux voix qui, plus spécifiquement, lui reprochent une attitude fondée uniquement sur une vision à court terme, les auteurs rétorquent néanmoins que l’offensive shareholder activism se pratique selon un modèle d’affaires visant à cibler puis à redresser des éléments empêchant la valeur actionnariale d’une société de fructifier au maximum. Dès lors que l’empêchement a été traité, les actionnaires pratiquant l’offensive shareholder activism n’ont plus aucune raison de conserver leurs parts dans la société. De plus, les auteurs précisent que, contrairement à l’offensive shareholder activism, l’attitude passive des actionnaires ayant une vision à long terme n’amène aucun avantage à la gestion de la société. Qui plus est, des études démontrent la relative pérennité (sur une période de cinq ans) d’une portion des gains générés par l’offensive shareholder activism [5]. Finalement, Rose et Sharfman traitent des critiques voulant que les administrateurs s’avèrent mieux informés que les actionnaires quant aux activités de la société. Les administrateurs seraient a priori en meilleure pour en assurer la gestion de la société en continu. Bien qu’ils reconnaissent cette asymétrie, les auteurs la minimisent en précisant que l’offensive shareholder activism est pratiqué par des acteurs pouvant détenir une plus grande expertise sur certaines matières.

Au final, voici un article qui dans le contexte actuel si intense (et discuté) de l’activisme actionnarial [6] doit être lu avec intérêt !

[1] Paul Rose and Bernard S. Sharfman, « Shareholder Activism as a Corrective Mechanism in Corporate Governance », (2014) 5 BYU Law Review 1015.

[2] La compagnie publique est celle ayant fait « appel public à l’épargne », de façon analogue à ce que prévoient, au Québec, la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières, RLRQ c. V-1.1 et ses règlements.

[3] Alon Brav, Wei Jiang, Frank Partnoy and Randall Thomas, « Hedge Fund Activism, Corporate Governance, and Firm Performance », (2008) 63 J. FIN. 1729 ; Nicole M. Boyson and Robert M. Mooradian, « Experienced Hedge Fund Activists », (2012) AFA Chi. Meetings Paper, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1787649.

[4] Sanford J. Grossman and Joseph E. Stiglitz, « On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets », (1980) 70 AM. ECON. REV. 393 ; Bernard S. Sharfman, « Why Proxy Access is Harmful to Corporate Governance », (2012) 37 J. CORP. L. 387.

[5] Alon Brav, Wei Jiang, Frank Partnoy and Randall Thomas, préc. note 3, p. 1735 ; Nicole M. Boyson, Linlin Ma and Robert Mooradian, « Are All Hedge Fund Activists Created Equal? The Impact of Experience on Hedge Fund Activism », (2014) Inaugural Financial Market Symposium, School of Business State University of New York ; Lucian A. Bebchuk, Alon Brav and Wei Jiang, « The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism » (2014) Columbia Business School, Research Paper No 13-66, http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2291577.

[6] Pour des illustrations récentes de comportement court-termiste des activistes, voir : Andrew R. Sorkin, « “Shareholder Democracy” Can Mask Abuses », The New York Times (25 février 2013). Pour les discussions récentes sur les objectifs attachés à l’activisme des fonds de couverture aux États-Unis, voir : Martin Lipton, « The Threat to Shareholders and the Economy from Activist Hedge Funds » (14 janvier 2015), The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2015/01/14/the-threat-to-shareholders-and-the-economy-from-activist-hedge-funds/ ; Lucian A. Bebchuk, Alon Brav and Wei Jiang, préc. note 4 ; Francis Byrd, Drew Hambly and Mark Watson, « Short-Term Shareholder Activists Degrade Creditworthiness of Rated Companies », Commentaire spécial, Moody’s Investors Services, 2007. Au Canada, voir : Yvan Allaire, The case for and against activist hedge funds, IGOPP Policy Paper, IGOPP, Montreal, 2014, http://igopp.org/en/the-case-for-and-against-activist-hedge-funds-2/. En France, voir Laurence Boisseau, « Attaques des fonds activistes : des effets controversés à long terme », Les Échos.fr, (22 janvier 2015), http://www.lesechos.fr/22/01/2015/lesechos.fr/0204102535772_attaques-des-fonds-activistes—des-effets-controverses-a-long-terme.htm.

*Ivan Tchotourian, professeur en droit des affaires, codirecteur du Centre d’Études en Droit Économique (CÉDÉ), membre du Groupe de recherche en droit des services financiers (www.grdsf.ulaval.ca), Faculté de droit, Université Laval.

Modèle d’affaires hasardeux et gouvernance désastreuse à la société canadienne Valeant


Voici un article récemment publié dans The Economist, qui met en évidence les énormes faiblesses de la gouvernance corporative de Valeant, l’un des « fleurons » de l’industrie pharmaceutique canadienne.

Selon le magazine, il s’agit du plus désastreux constat d’échec d’une firme cotée à la bourse de New York depuis la faillite de Lehman Brothers en 2008 !

À part un modèle d’affaires déficient et douteux, quelles sont les leçons à tirer pour les conseils d’administration de sociétés publiques ?

Les auteurs insistent sur les problèmes de contrôle interne, la faiblesse notoire du conseil d’administration, les interventions opportunistes des actionnaires activistes, notamment Jeffrey Ubben de ValueAct et Bill Ackman de Pershing Square, qui détiennent quatre des douze sièges du conseil d’administration. À lui seul Pershing Square détient 9 % des actions et son président Bill Ackman vient de joindre le CA.

Un article paru hier dans Canadian Business montre encore plus clairement comment l’inefficacité du conseil d’administration est à l’origine des problèmes de Valeant (Why the trouble at Valeant starts with its board of directors).

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, le paragraphe introductif de l’article paru dans The Economist.

Until recently, America hadn’t had a spectacular corporate disaster since Lehman Brothers in 2008. But Valeant, a Canadian but New York-listed drug firm, now meets all of the tests: a bad business model, accounting problems, acquisitions, debt, an oddly low tax rate, a weak board, credulous analysts, and managers with huge pay packets and a mentality of denial. The result has been a $75 billion loss for shareholders and, possibly, a default on $31 billion of debt.

Je vous invite à lire la suite de cet article, notamment les trois leçons que nous devrions en retirer.

Bonne lecture !

 

He who would Valeant be | Corporate Governance

 

 

On March 21st Valeant announced that Michael Pearson, its CEO, was leaving.

Valeant’s business model was buying other drug firms, cutting costs and yanking up prices. Since 2010 it has done $35 billion of deals, mainly financed by debt. At a time when Americans face stagnant living standards, a strategy based on squeezing customers was bound to encounter political hostility—“I’m going after them,” Hillary Clinton has vowed.

Valeant added to this mix a tendency towards evasiveness. In October investigative reporters revealed its murky relationship with a drugs dispensary, Philidor, which it consolidated into its accounts yet did not control. The relationship was severed but the Securities and Exchange Commission is still investigating. Federal prosecutors are also looking into various of the company’s practices. On Christmas Eve Michael Pearson, Valeant’s CEO and architect, went into hospital with pneumonia. On February 28th Mr Pearson (total pay awarded of $55m since 2012, according to Bloomberg) returned to work, welcomed back by the chairman for his “vision and execution”.

 

 

The facts that have emerged in March suggest that Mr Pearson should have been fired. Profit targets have been cut by 24% compared with October’s. The accounts will be restated and the filing of an annual report delayed. The results released on March 15th contain neither a full cash-flow statement nor a balance-sheet, but it appears that Valeant has been generating only just enough cash to pay its $1.6 billion interest bill this year. As suppliers and customers get wary, its cashflow may fall, leading to a default.

There are three lessons. First, boards matter: the managers should have been removed in October. Second, disasters happen in plain sight. Valeant issued $1.45 billion of shares in March 2015, when 90% of Wall Street analysts covering its shares rated them a “buy”. Yet as early as 2014 a rival firm, Allergan, had made an outspoken attack on Valeant’s finances, the thrust of which has been proved correct.

The final lesson is that “activist” investors, who aim to play a hands-on role at the firms that they invest in, have no monopoly on wisdom. Jeffrey Ubben of ValueAct and Bill Ackman of Pershing Square both own chunks of Valeant and have supported it. Mr Ackman is at present trying to consolidate America’s railway system. Mr Ubben is trying to shake up Rolls-Royce, a British aerospace firm. After Valeant, why should anyone listen to what they say?

_____________________________

Pour en connaître davantage sur la société Valeant et sur le rôle des administrateurs : 

How Valeant challenged convention—for better, then for worse

Valeant CEO stepping down, company blames former CFO for misstated earnings

Four ways CEOs can win back the public’s trust

Four ways to build a better corporate board of directors

How corporate boards can set executive pay more fairly

What are corporate boards ethically obligated to know?

How to get corporate boards to think longer-term

How to make corporate boards more diverse

La rémunération du PDG est liée à l’indépendance du président du conseil !


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, les conclusions d’une étude menées par ISS concernant l’influence de la structure de leadership du CA sur la rémunération globale des CEO d’entreprises américaines.

On sait que dans les entreprises publiques (cotées en bourse) aux É.U., 51 % persistent à combiner les deux rôles de président du CA et de CEO (en baisse de 3 points depuis 2014).

La firme de conseil en votation ISS recommande depuis de nombreuses années aux entreprises de séparer les fonctions de président du conseil et président et de chef de la direction (CEO).

ISS prône l’indépendance des administrateurs des CA, notamment celle du président du conseil, comme indice d’une bonne gouvernance. Les résultats ont cependant souvent été mitigés eu égard à la relation entre l’indépendance du président du conseil et la performance de l’entreprise.

Une analyse d’ISS auprès de 484 entreprises, sur une période de trois ans, montre les résultats suivants eu égard à l’influence du leadership du conseil sur la rémunération du président de l’entreprise (CEO). Ainsi, l’étude montre que lorsque le président du CA est une personne interne de l’organisation, la rémunération du CEO est :

(1) 13 % plus élevée que lorsque le président combine les deux rôles ;

(2) 38 % plus élevée que lorsque le président est un administrateur désigné ;

(3) 42 % plus élevée que lorsque le président est un administrateur indépendant.

Sur la base de résultats tels que ceux-ci, la firme ISS considère qu’il est dans l’intérêt supérieur des actionnaires d’avoir une structure de leadership du conseil avec un administrateur indépendant comme président.

L’article publié par la firme juridique Cooley et paru sur le site de Lexology* donne les détails de l’étude et fait état de deux autres études qui indiquent que la performance de l’entreprise n’est pas significativement liée au modèle de gouvernance en vigueur. Cependant, ISS constate que la rémunération du CEO est fortement liée à l’indépendance du président du conseil.

Voici le texte de cet article. Quel est votre point de vue à ce sujet ?

Bonne lecture !

 

ISS study shows board leadership structure affects CEO compensation

 

 

According to a new report from ISS, the structure of board leadership plays a significant role in relative levels of CEO compensation. Combining the CEO and board chair titles is still the most prevalent leadership structure among S&P 500 companies, with 51% of companies combined the roles in 2015, a slight decline from 54% in 2014. However, the study found, when it comes to CEO compensation, having an independent chair makes a difference.

2231-1-fr-medium

In the study, ISS analyzed companies in the S&P 500 over a three-year period. The study looked at CEO compensation in the context of four board leadership structures: combined CEO/chair; “insider chair,” where the board chair is a current employee or officer (other than the CEO) – most commonly an executive chair – a beneficial owner of more than 50% of the company’s voting power or named in the Summary Compensation Table; “affiliated outsider,” typically former CEOs/interim officers, non-CEO executives, immediate family members of current or former officers, transactional or professional relationships, or non-employee founders; and “independent outsider” with no material connection to the company other than board service.

Analyzing final data for 484 companies, the study found that CEOs on boards with a separate “insider” as chair averaged annual compensation over the three-year period that was about 13% higher than CEOs with a combined chair role, 38% more than CEOs with an affiliated outsider chair and 42% more than CEOs with an independent board chair. One caveat, however, was that CEOs at four companies with insider chairs received dramatically higher compensation, which skewed the mean average; when the comparison was instead based on the medians for each category, compensation was highest for CEOs who served in a combined role as CEO/chair median.

To provide another perspective, the study also aggregated CEO compensation in the three non-independent categories – combined CEO/chair, insider chair and affiliated outsider chair – and compared the result to CEO pay at companies with an independent outsider chair. CEOs in the resulting non-independent group had average annual compensation that was 26% higher than the group of CEOs with an independent outsider chair.

The study also performed regression analyses using four other variables: three-year “indexed” TSR of the company versus the S&P 500; company revenues; CEO tenure; and whether there was a change in CEO during the three-year period. Only two of the five variables – first revenue and then board leadership structure – were found to have significance. Using the same variables, the study also analyzed CEO pay for only two categories of board leadership structure: the combined CEO/chair and the independent outsider chair. This comparison had the highest level of significance, indicating that the difference between the two types of board leadership structure accounted for $2.51 million of the difference in the CEO pay levels for those two structures. To examine whether the difference might be attributable to the additional work associated with the dual role, the study also performed a similar analysis comparing CEO comp for the combined non-independent group with the independent chair group; the results were similar.

The study concluded that

“the fact that, on average, a CEO’s pay is generally higher when that post is held in conjunction with the board chair role or with an insider chairman provides some confirmation to suspicions that insiders are not the best monitors of shareholder interests in the board room, at least as measured by CEO pay. Further, the fact that CEOs with an insider board chair received, on average, the highest compensation packages regardless of relative shareholder returns indicates that the reason for higher pay to individuals in a combined CEO/chair role may not be due to high performance or to boards recognizing the increased workload involved in holding both positions, as further supported by various regression analyses. While this analysis does not establish cause and effect, one speculation is that companies that have more independent oversight are able to provide a more effective check to the CEO, including pay determination, as evidenced by the much lower average CEO compensation under the independent outsider structure.”

It’s worth noting that views about the benefits of separation of the CEO and chair roles are far from uniform. In “Seven Myths of Boards of Directors,” two academics from Stanford Business School viewed the concept that board chairs should always be independent as a myth that is “not substantiated by empirical evidence.”The authors contended that activists have pressured companies to separate the positions of CEO and board chair based on the argument that an independent chair without ties to management will provide more vigilant oversight, acting as an effective counterweight to management when required. Nevertheless, the authors contend, “the research evidence does not support this conclusion.” The authors cite various studies finding “no statistical relationship between the independence status of the chairman and operating performance,” “no evidence that a change in independence status (separation or combination) impacts future operating performance,” and some evidence that “forced separation is detrimental to firm outcomes: Companies that separate the roles due to investor pressure exhibit negative returns around the announcement date and lower subsequent operating performance.” Accordingly, they argue, the costs and benefits of requiring an independent chair depend on the circumstances, and quote the former head of the FDIC, Sheila Bair: “Too much is made of separating these roles. … It’s really more about the people and whether they are competent and setting the right tone and culture.”(See this PubCo post.)

Similarly, a 2013 Director Notes paper from The Conference Board argues that, while the debate over separation of the CEO/chair roles has “raged for at least 20 years and shows no signs of abating,” research on the issue “has yielded only one overarching conclusion: a CEO who also serves as board chair is no better or worse for company performance than an independent director serving as board chair. To study the impact of CEO/board chair separation on company performance, the authors studied companies in the S&P 1500 that underwent a CEO-board chair separation between 2003 and 2005. The results of the study demonstrated that the context for the separation of roles had a significant impact on the outcome: the study showed that a CEO-board chair separation would promote strong future performance only when it followed weak performance, [and] that a separation following strong performance would hurt performance going forward.” Once again, circumstances matter.

Interestingly, while the policies of ISS and Glass Lewis generally favor shareholder proposals to separate the CEO/chair role, ISS’s view is somewhat nuanced: under its current approach, in assessing whether to recommend in favor of the proposal, ISS takes the position that “any single factor that may have previously resulted in a ‘For’ or ‘Against’ recommendation may be mitigated by other positive or negative aspects, respectively. Thus a holistic review of all of the factors related to company’s board leadership structure, governance practices, and performance will be conducted under the new approach.” And, notwithstanding the views of these proxy advisory firms, the efforts of governance activists to separate the CEO/chair roles have not exactly caught fire. CFO.com reports that “shareholders have proven largely comfortable with the combined role: They have voted on 372 proposals to separate the roles at S&P 500 companies over the past decade, but approved only about 6% of them, according to ISS.” It remains to be seen whether the results of this new study will lead ISS to enhance the level of its resistance to combining these roles, galvanize governance advocates to promote more separation proposals or cause shareholders to take a fresh look at these proposals.

______________________________
*Lexology collaborates with the world’s leading lawyers and other thought leaders to deliver tailored updates and analysis to the desktops of business professionals worldwide on a daily basis. With an archive of over 450,000 articles in more than 20 languages covering 50 work areas worldwide, Lexology is a powerful research Platform.

 

Rencontre du droit, de l’administration et de la finance


Un grand colloque en gouvernance se tiendra le vendredi 1er avril 2016 au salon Hermès de la Faculté des sciences de l’administration (FSA) de l’Université Laval.

palasis-prince-FSA

Ce colloque, organisé conjointement par le Centre d’études en droit économique (Faculté de droit, ULaval) et la Chaire de recherche en gouvernance de sociétés (FSA, ULaval), est l’occasion de débattre de manière pluridisciplinaire sur les grands enjeux contemporains en gouvernance d’entreprise.

Les thématiques abordées concernent :

  1. la composition et la mission des conseils d’administration
  2. les devoirs des administrateurs relativement à l’information
  3. le contenu et la légitimité des pouvoirs des actionnaires
  4. l’activisme actionnarial
  5. l’opportunité de normes de divulgation ou impératives

Le colloque présente les perspectives et les points de vue d’intervenants provenant des milieux suivants : autorités réglementaires, organisations professionnelles, praticiens, administrateurs et chercheurs en gouvernance.

Voici le programme de la journée « Rencontre du droit, de l’administration et de la finance » préparé par les professeurs Jean Bédard et Ivan Tchotourian.

La présidence de la journée a été confiée à Nicolle Forget, administratrice de sociétés.

Horaire de la journée

DÉTAIL
8 h 30 Mot d’accueil

Eugénie Brouillet, doyenne et professeure, Faculté de droit, Université Laval
8 h 35 Mot de bienvenue

Jean Bédard, professeur et titulaire de la Chaire de recherche en gouvernance des sociétés, FSA ULaval

Ivan Tchotourian, professeur et codirecteur du CÉDÉ, Faculté de droit, Université Laval
8 h 40 Le point de vue du régulateur sur la gouvernance
9 h Le conseil d’administration en question

Ce panel abordera de nombreux questionnements actuels sur le conseil d’administration. Sa mission, sa composition (et notamment la parité hommes-femmes), le contrôle de la rémunération des dirigeants qui lui incombe, la place des valeurs éthiques, les pratiques les plus actuelles seront les sujets principaux qui seront discutés par les panélistes.

– Actualités juridiques et CA. : Olga Farman, avocate, Norton Rose Fulbright

– Parité et CA, bilan des initiatives juridiques : Sonia Struthers, avocate associée, McCarthyTetrault

– CA et parité, bilan 2014 des pratiques des entreprises : Jean Bédard, professeur et titulaire de la Chaire de recherche en gouvernance des sociétés, et Sophie Brière, professeure, FSA ULaval
10 h Période de questions
10 h 25 Pause-café
10 h 40 Devoirs des administrateurs et divulgation d’information

Dans le cadre de ce panel portant sur les devoirs des administrateurs, le risque communicationnel, la gestion des informations par le biais des médias sociaux, la divulgation extra-financière, la notion d’intérêt social feront l’objet d’une attention particulière.

– Médias sociaux et risque communicationnel : Vincent Bergeron, avocat et agent de marque, associé, Rodic, et Pierre Fournier-Simard, avocat et consultant, McKinsey Montréal

– Divulgation extra-financière des sociétés par actions, où en est-on ? : Michelle RODRIGUE, professeure, FSA, Université Laval

– Information et responsabilité des administrateurs en droit des valeurs mobilières, étude empirique 2008-2014 : Jean Bédard, professeur et titulaire de la Chaire de recherche en gouvernance des sociétés, FSA, Université Laval, Ivan Tchotourian, professeur et codirecteur du CÉDÉ, Faculté de droit, Université Laval
11 h 55 Période de questions
12 h 20 Repas
13 h 45 Point de vue de la CCGG
14 h Table ronde

Activisme actionnarial et droit de vote Animateur : Daniel ST-ONGE, conseiller en gouvernance

La table ronde analysera l’exercice du pouvoir des actionnaires et les visages contemporains de l’usage du droit de vote. Les sujets qui seront débattus sont les suivants : les conséquences de l’instauration du vote majoritaire, les stratégies de dialogue entre les actionnaires et la direction, la participation des actionnaires aux objectifs de l’entreprise, la place des agences en conseil de vote, le principe « 1 action = 1 voix ».

Stéphane Rousseau, professeur, Vice-doyen aux études supérieures et à la recherche, titulaire de la Chaire en gouvernance et droit des affaires, Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal

Daniel Thouin, président du Mouvement d’éducation et de défense des actionnaires (MÉDAC)

Julien Le Maux, professeur, HEC Montréal
15 h 15 Période de questions
15 h 45 Mot de clôture
16 h Verre de l’amitié

 

Toutes les informations concernant cet événement sont disponibles sur le site

http://www4.fsa.ulaval.ca/evenements/enjeux-contemporains-de-gouvernance-dentreprise/
 Bon colloque !
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Document complet de KPMG sur les bonnes pratiques de gouvernance et de gestion d’un CA | The Directors Toolkit


Voici la troisième édition d’un document australien de KPMG, très bien conçu, qui répond clairement aux questions que tous les administrateurs de sociétés se posent dans le cours de leurs mandats.

Même si la publication est dédiée à l’auditoire australien de KPMG, je crois que la réalité réglementaire nord-américaine est trop semblable pour se priver d’un bon « kit » d’outils qui peut aider à constituer un Board efficace.

C’est un formidable document électronique interactif de 182 pages. Voyez la table des matières ci-dessous.

J’ai demandé à KPMG de me procurer une version française du même document mais il ne semble pas en exister.

Bonne lecture !

The Directors Toolkit | KPMG

 The Directors' Toolkit cover

Our business environment provides an ever-changing spectrum of risks and opportunities. The role of the director continues to be shaped by a multitude of forces including economic uncertainty, larger and more complex organisations, the increasing pace of technological innovation and digitisation along with a more rigorous regulatory environment.

At the same time there is more onus on directors to operate transparently and be more accountable for their actions and decisions.

To support directors in their challenging role, KPMG has created an interactive Directors’ Toolkit. Now in its third edition, this comprehensive guide is in a user friendly electronic format. It is designed to assist directors to more effectively discharge their duties and improve board performance and decision-making.

Key topics

Duties and responsibilities of a director

Oversight of strategy and governance

Managing shareholder and stakeholder expectations

Structuring an effective board and sub-committees

Enabling key executive appointments

Managing productive meetings

Better practice terms of reference, charters and agendas

Establishing new boards.

What’s New

In this latest version, we have included newly updated sections on:

Roles, responsibilities and expectations of directors of not-for-profit organisations

Risks and opportunities social media presents for directors and organisations

Key responsibilities of directors for overseeing investment governance, operations and processes.

Rapport spécial sur l’importance de l’éthique dans l’amélioration de la gouvernance | Knowledge@Wharton


Aujourd’hui, je vous oriente vers un rapport récemment publié par Knowledge@Wharton qui fait le point sur les grands principes qui guident la mise en œuvre efficace de la gouvernance des entreprises.

À la lecture du document, vous serez certainement conscientisé au fait que l’entreprise ne doit pas uniquement rechercher le profit à court terme, mais doit également poser des gestes décisifs montrant comment elle vise à accomplir sa raison d’être à long terme, notamment en ne redistribuant pas une part trop importante des profits aux actionnaires, sous la forme de dividendes et de rachats d’actions.

Ces mesures, selon Larry Fink, le CEO de BlackRock, sont nécessaires afin d’assurer la pérennité de l’organisation. Elles permettent à l’organisation de se concentrer sur les investissements en recherche et développement, en innovations, en formation des meilleurs talents, ainsi qu’en investissements majeurs destinés à assurer la croissance à long terme.

En février dernier, Fink, le premier dirigeant du plus grand investisseur mondial (BlackRock), a fait parvenir une lettre aux PDG des 500 plus grandes entreprises de la S&P les exhortant à adopter une perspective à long terme de la conduite des entreprises, en se distançant de « l’hystérie de la culture des résultats trimestriels ».

Également, vous voudrez peut-être aussi prendre connaissance d’un excellent article paru dans le numéro de janvier-février 2014 de la Harvard Business Review intitulé « Focusing Capital on the Long Term » par Dominic Barton et Mark Wiseman.

Big investors have an obligation to end the plague of short-termism.

La lettre de Larry Fink, que je vous invite à lire, a déjà fait couler beaucoup d’encre. Ses conclusions vont dans le sens du premier volet abordé dans le rapport spécial de Knowledge@Wharton : la gouvernance et la raison d’être des entreprises.

Le rapport spécial sur l’importance d’une solide éthique d’affaires pour l’amélioration de la gouvernance aborde quatre autres sujets que je vous invite à consulter en cliquant sur le lien ci-dessous et en téléchargeant le document PDF.

(1) La gouvernance et la responsabilité morale de l’entreprise

(2) la gouvernance et les programmes de conformité

(3) la gouvernance et la culture organisationnelle

(4) la gouvernance, le leadership et le rôle du conseil d’administration

Vos commentaires et points de vue sont toujours les bienvenus. Voici un court extrait de ce rapport.

Bonne lecture !

 

Special Report on Business Ethics: Enhancing Corporate Governance

 

trees growing in a sequence of germination on piles of coins

 

 

Corporate governance refers to the rules and policies that determine how a company is controlled. On the face of it, what does it have to do with ethics – or choices between right and wrong? According to Henrik Syse, a senior fellow at the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway, the connection between ethics and corporate governance is exceedingly close. “Corporate governance is about such topics as accurate reporting, a sound board structure, sustainable finances, a positive work environment, consciousness of the relationship between principals and agents, and long-term strategies for the firm as a whole,” he notes. “Such topics are obviously ethical, as they deal with how a firm relates to the outside world, and how it builds relationships within. We may not always explicitly talk about such issues as ethical, but ipso facto they are.”

The goal of this special report – the first of four that will be published by Knowledge@Wharton and AKO Foundation – is to explore how firms can enhance their understanding and implementation of corporate governance. In the report, which features insights from Wharton faculty and other experts, we consider five key topics: the relationship between corporate governance and the purpose of a firm; whether firms have a moral responsibility; the link between corporate governance and compliance programs; the impact of corporate culture; and the role of leadership and boards of directors. Future reports in this series will examine themes such as moral philosophy, corruption and business for peace.