Comment rendre plus explicite le travail des administrateurs eu égard à la prise en compte des parties prenantes ?

Quels moyens les organisations peuvent-elles prendre afin de s’assurer que les intérêts de toutes les parties prenantes soient pris en compte plutôt qu’uniquement ceux des actionnaires.

Cet article écrit par Leo Strine, Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court et Senior Fellow du Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance, et paru dans le Harvard Business Law Review, propose, à l’instar de la règlementation du Delaware, de modifier les actes constitutifs des entreprises afin d’énoncer clairement que les corporations publiques à buts lucratifs doivent gérer non seulement en fonction des intérêts des actionnaires, mais également en fonction des intérêts de toutes les autres parties prenantes.

Public benefit corporation” is a for-profit corporation organized under and subject to the requirements of this chapter that is intended to produce a public benefit or public benefits and to operate in a responsible and sustainable manner. To that end, a public benefit corporation shall be managed in a manner that balances the stockholders’ pecuniary interests, the best interests of those materially affected by the corporation’s conduct, and the public benefit or public benefits identified in its certificate of incorporation.

This general provision is matched by a more specific one directed to the duties of directors, which plainly states: The board of directors shall manage or direct the business and affairs of the public benefit corporation in a manner that balances the pecuniary interests of the stockholders, the best interests of those materially affected by the corporation’s conduct, and the specific public benefit or public benefits identified in its certificate of incorporation.

Bonne lecture !

MAKING IT EASIER FOR DIRECTORS TO “DO THE RIGHT THING”?

The abstract of Chief Justice Strine’s essay summarizes it briefly as follows:

Some scholars argue that managers should take constituencies other than stockholders into account when running a corporation, and refuse to put short-term profit for stockholders over the best interests of the corporation’s employees, consumers, and communities, as well as the environment and society generally. In other words, they argue that managers should “do the right thing,” while ignoring that in the current corporate accountability structure, stockholders are the only constituency given any enforceable rights, and thus are the only one with substantial influence over managers. Few commentators have proposed real solutions that would give corporate managers more ability and greater incentives to consider the interests of other constituencies.

This Article posits that benefit corporation statutes have the potential to change the accountability structure within which managers operate. These statutes create incremental reform that puts actual power behind the idea that corporations should “do the right thing.” Certain provisions of the Delaware benefit corporation statute are discussed as an example of how these statutes can create a meaningful shift in the balance of power that will in fact give corporate managers more ability to and impose upon them an enforceable duty to “do the right thing.”

But this Article acknowledges that several important questions must be answered to determine whether benefit corporation statutes will have the durable, systemic effect desired. First, the initial wave of entrepreneurs who form benefit corporations must demonstrate a genuine commitment to social responsibility to preserve the credibility of the movement. Second, because the benefit corporation model relies on stockholders to enforce the duties to other constituencies, socially responsible investment funds must be willing to vote their long-term consciences instead of cashing in for short-term gains. To that end, it is crucial that benefit corporations show that doing things “the right way” will be profitable in the long run. Third, benefit corporations must pass the “going public” test. Finally, subsidiaries that are governed as benefit corporations must honor their commitments and grow successfully, if the movement is to grow to scale.

Recommandations en matières de politiques de gouvernance | L’approche de Glass Lewis pour 2015

Voici un document très complet sur les avis de Glass Lewis pour 2015. On y aborde les plus importantes recommandations concernant la gouvernance des organisations : l’élection des administrateurs, la déclassification, la durée des mandats, les limites d’âge, l’accès aux documents de votation, le vote majoritaire pour l’élection.

Également, on émet des recommandations sur l’approbation des auditeurs, les questions de fonds de pension, le Say-on-Pay, les arrangements de « Golden parachute », les plans de rémunération des hauts dirigeants et des administrateurs, les plans d’achat d’actions par les employés, les questions fiscales, les mesures de protection contre les offres d’achat non-sollicitées, la structure de votation, les exigences de la divulgation d’informations, l’actionnariat activiste, etc.

Guidelines en matière de politique de gouvernance | L’approche et les recommandations de Glass Lewis pour 2015

C’est l’un des documents les plus explicites en matière de politique de gouvernance. La firme de conseil Glass Lewis y présente son approche et ses recommandations eues égard au vote des actionnaires en 2015.

À lire !

Le rôle du comité exécutif versus le rôle du conseil d’administration

Voici une discussion très intéressante paru sur le groupe de discussion LinkedIn Board of Directors Society, et initiée par Jean-François Denault, concernant la nécessité de faire appel à un comité exécutif.

Je vous invite à lire les commentaires présentés sur le fil de discussion du groupe afin de vous former une opinion.

Personnellement, je crois que le comité exécutif est beaucoup trop souvent impliqué dans des activités de nature managériale.

Dans plusieurs cas, le CA pourrait s’en passer et reprendre l’initiative !

Qu’en pensez-vous ?

____________________________________________________

La situation exposée par Jean-François Denault est la suivante (en anglais) :

I’m looking for feedback for a situation I encountered.

I am a board member for a non-profit. Some of us learned of an issue, and we brought it up at the last meeting for an update.

We were told that it was being handled by the Executive Committee, and would not be brought up in board meetings.

It is my understanding that the executive committee’s role is not to take issues upon themselves, but to act in interim of board meetings. It should not be discussing issues independently from the board.

Am I correct in thinking this? Should all issues be brought up to the board, or can the executive committee handle situations that it qualifies as « sensitive »?

The Role of the Executive Committee versus the main board of directors

Alan Kershaw

Chair of Regulatory Board

Depends whether it’s an operational matter I guess – e.g. a staffing issue below CEO/Director level. If it’s a matter of policy or strategy, or impacts on them, then the Board is entitled to be kept informed, surely, and to consider the matter itself.

John Dinner

John T, Dinner Board Governance Services

Helping boards improve their performance and contributionI’ll respond a bit more broadly, Jean-François. While I am not opposed to the use of executive committees, a red flag often goes up when I conduct a governance review for clients and review their EC mandate and practices. There is a slippery slope where such committees find themselves assuming more accountability for the board’s work over time. Two classes of directors often form unintentionally as a result. Your situation is an example where the executive committee has usurped the board’s final authority. While I don’t recommend one approach, my inclination is to suggest that boards try to function without an executive committee because of the frequency that situations similar to the one you describe arise at boards where such committees play an active role. There are pros and cons, of course, for having these committees, but I believe the associated risk often warrants reconsideration of their real value and need.

Chuck Molina

Chief Technology Officer at DHI

I currently sit on the EC and have been in that role with other boards. Although I can see the EC working on projects as a subset of the board we Always go back to the full board and disclose those projects and will take items to the full board for approval. The board as a whole is accountable for decisions! There has to be transparency on the board! I found this article for you. http://www.help4nonprofits.com/BrainTeaser/BrainTeaser-Role_of_Executive_Committee.htm , which concurs to John’s comment. If used correctly the EC or a subset of the board can work on board issues more efficiently then venting through the full board, but they should always go back to the Full board for consideration or approval.

Dave Chapman

CHM and CEO of NorthPoint ERM

I have experienced couple of EB’s and unless the company is in deep financial or legal trouble for the most part the took away from the main board and in the whole worked ok but not great. If the board has over 10 to 15 board members it is almost a requirement but the board them is there for optics more than or effective and efficient decision making

James Clouser

Experienced CEO & Board member of Domestic and European companies.

I think Mr. Dinner, Mr. Molina, and Mr. Chapman summed it up beautifully:
– You cannot have two classes of Directors
– You have to have transparency and every Board member is entitled to the same information
– A Board of 10-15 members is inefficient and may need committees, but that does not change the fact that all Board members are entitled to have input into anything that the Board decides as a body.
– An Executive Committee is a sub-committee of the entire Board, not an independent body with extraordinary powers.

Al Errington

Entrepreneur & Governance Advocate

I agree with John, executive committees tend to be a slippery slope to bad governance. The board of directors has the responsibility of direction and oversight of the business or organization. If anything goes substantially wrong, the board of directors will also be accountable, legally. The rules of thumb for any and all committees is
– Committees must always be accountable to the board of directors, not the other way around.
– Committees must always have limits defined by the board of directors on authority and responsibility, and should have limits on duration.
– Committees should always have a specific reason to exist and that reason should be to support the board of directors in addressing it’s responsibilities.

Emerson Galfo

Consulting CFO/COO / Board Member/Advisor

Judging from the responses, we need to clearly define the context of what an Executive Committee is. Every organization can have it’s own function/view of what an Executive Committee is.

From my experience, an Executive Committee is under the CEO and reflects a group of trusted C-level executives that influence his decisions. I have had NO experience with Executive Boards other than the usual specific Board Committees dealing with specific realms of the organization.

So coming from this perspective, the Executive Committee is two steps down from the organizational pecking order and should be treated or viewed in that context..

Terry Tormey

President & CEO at Prevention Pharmaceuticals Inc.

I concur with Mr. James Clouser (above).
They should be avoided except in matters involving a performance question regarding C-Level Executive Board member, where a replacement may be sought.

John Baily

Board of Directors at RLI Corp

James hit the nail on the head. Executive committees are a throwback to times when we didn’t have the communication tools we do now. They no longer have a reason for their existence. All directors, weather on a not for profit or a corporate board have equal responsibilities and legal exposures. There is no room or reason for a board within a board in today’s world.

Chinyere Nze

Chief Executive Officer

My experience is; Board members have the last say in all policy issues- especially when it concerns operational matter. But in this case, where there is Executive Committee, what it sounds like is that, the organization in question has not clearly identified, nor delineated the roles of each body- which seem to have brought up the issue of ‘conflict’ in final decision- making. Often Executive Committees are created to act as a buffer or interim to the Board, this may sometime cause some over-lapping in executive decision-making.

My suggestion is for the organization to assess and evaluate its current hierarchy- clearly identify & define roles-benefits for creating and having both bodies, and how specific policies/ protocol would benefit the organization. In other words, the CEO needs to define the goals or benefits of having just a Board or having both bodies, and to avoid role conflict or over-lap, which may lead to confusion, as it seems to have been the case here.

STEPHEN KOSMALSKI

CEO / PRESIDENT/BOARD OF DIRECTORS /PRIVATE EQUITY OPERATING PARTNER known for returning growth to stagnant businesses

The critical consideration for all board members is ‘ fiduciary accountability’ of all bod members. With that exposure , all bod members should be aware of key issues .

Thomas Brattle « Toby » Gannett

President and CEO at BCR Managment

I think for large organizations, that executive committees still have an important role as many board members have a great deal going on and operational matters may come up from time to time that need to be handled in a judicial manner. While I think that the Executive committee has an important, at times critical role for a BOD, it is also critical that trust is built between the executive Committee and the BOD. This is only done when the executive committee is transparent, and pushes as many decisions that it can to the full board. If the committee does not have time to bring a matter to the full BOD, then they must convey to the BOD the circumstances why and reasoning for their decision. It is the executive committees responsibility to build that trust with the BOD and work hard to maintain it. All strategic decisions must be made by the full BOD. It sounds like you either have a communication failure, governance issue, or need work with your policies and procedures or a combination of issues.

La réglementation canadienne est déficiente à plusieurs égards | Richard Leblanc

Aujourd’hui, je tiens à partager avec vous le point de vue de Richard Leblanc, expert canadien de la gouvernance corporative, professeur de droit des affaires, consultant en gouvernance et observateur attentif de la scène réglementaire canadienne.

Richard nous présente cinq domaines de la règlementation canadienne qui sont déficients, ou à tout le moins perfectibles. Ce jugement peut sembler assez sévère mais, en ce qui me concerne, je le partage entièrement, d’autant plus que plusieurs de mes billets vont dans le sens des lacunes observées par Richard.

Un document réglementaire de quatre (4) pages sur la bonne gouvernance est, en effet, un peu restreint !

La règlementation en gouvernance au Canada, laquelle date de 10 ans, est certainement désuète eu regard aux autres règlementations des pays développés.

Voici donc cinq (5) lacunes identifiées par Richard Leblanc, qui, selon plusieurs observateurs, méritent une attention particulière, sinon une révision systématique :

Déficiences au niveau des pratiques et des principes de gouvernance
Manque d’importance accordée à la gestion des risques
Manque d’une définition objective de l’indépendance des administrateurs
Manque d’importance accordée à l’expertise requise dans le domaine de l’industrie
Connaissances insuffisantes relatives aux aspects financiers et à l’audit interne.

Je vous invite à lire le compte rendu de son blogue, ci-dessous, afin de connaître les raisons invoquées.

Canada’s Corporate Governance Guidelines Are Out of Date

In my teaching, research and consulting, I no longer use “NP-58201 Corporate Governance Guidelines,” June 17, 2005 (“Guidelines”), that apply to publicly traded companies in Canada, as an example of exemplary corporate governance. I regard them as stale and dated. I cannot think of another developed country that has not updated its governance guidelines in almost 10 years. There have been more changes to governance since the financial crisis of 2008 than in a generation. And we are only about half way through all of them. Canadian regulators – including all provinces and territories – need to keep up, and step up.

Here are the deficiencies to the Guidelines as I see them:

1. Lack of principles and practices:

Our Guidelines are four pages long. The UK’s new Code (September 2014) is thirty-six pages. Australia’s Principles and Recommendations (March 2014) are forty-four. South Africa’s “King III” (2009) is sixty-six pages, to pick only three examples. Quantity is not necessarily quality, but by having such succinct guidelines, the opportunity to set out (i) best practices that (ii) achieve the objective of principles is gone. It is comply or explain against a perfunctory unitary guideline, which can be – and is – gamed by reporting management. There should be more robust guidance, where the regulator explains various ways good governance can occur, from which listed companies can pick and choose according to their circumstances.

2. Lack of focus on risk management:

Take risk for example. The Canadian Guidelines simply state that the board should identify principal risks and ensure appropriate systems are in place to manage these risks. I have no idea what this actually means, nor may directors. Risk management oversight now involves an explicit risk appetite framework, internal controls to mitigate, technology, limitations, and assurance provided directly to the board and committees by independent risk, compliance, and internal audit functions. None of these practices, which are very much addressed by other regulators, appear in the 2005 Guidelines. Consequently, many public companies have immature risk management, especially in addressing non-financial risks such as cyber security, operations, terrorism and reputation. Regulatory inaction has an effect. Even a forward-thinking director may be blocked by intransigent management to devote greater resources to mitigating risk because of inadequate regulation.

3. Lack of independence of mind:

In Canada, a board can subjectively believe a director to be independent, but this belief need not be independently validated, nor tied to any objective or reasonable standard. Nowhere else can a conflict of interest lack a perceptual foundation. As a result, directors tell me how colleagues are compromised by an office, perks, vacations, gifts, jobs for friends, social relatedness, relations to major shareholders, excessive pay, excessive tenure, interlocks, and other forms of capture. If a director or chair is captured, they are owned by management and totally ineffective. If there is a difference between regulatory independence and the independence of mind of directors, the fault lies with the regulation. Regulators should implement an objective standard of director independence, not a subjective one.

4. Lack of industry expertise:

It was admitted in open forum that the original 1994 committee did little research. Sufficient industry expertise on boards is glaringly absent from the Guidelines, and consequently in many boardrooms. We are suffering from an independence legacy, perpetuated by entrenched directors, and unsupported by academic research. For example, in Australia, two academics claim has cost their country’s decline in shareholder value between 30 and 50 billion Australian dollars (“Does “Board Independence” Destroy Corporate Value,” by Peter L. Swan and David Forsberg).

Fraud, meltdowns and underperformance such as Nortel, RIM and CP all had a paucity of industry experts on their boards, including, most recently, Tesco in the UK. JP Morgan at the time of the risk management failure did not have a single independent director with banking experience. Prior to Bill Ackman’s involvement in CP, not a single independent director had rail experience. I recently assessed a similar board and not a single director had the necessary industry experience. The Guidelines should require relevant industry expertise on boards. I recommended this to OSFI when I was retained by them to examine their earlier guidelines, and this is now the law for all federally regulated financial institutions, along with risk expertise being present on boards.

5. Lack of financial literacy and internal audit:

There is no requirement to be financially literate to sit, initially, on an audit committee of a Canadian public company. This presumes someone can acquire financial literacy as opposed to having it to begin with. There is also no requirement to have an internal audit function for a Canadian public company. This should also change so audit committee members hit the ground running, and there should be a comply or explain approach to internal audit. In many compliance failures, there is a defective or non-existent internal audit function, with a weak audit committee lacking recent and relevant expertise. Regulators are now moving towards “independent coordinated assurance,” which means that reporting to, and functional oversight by, the board and committees are fulfilled by internal and external personnel who are independent of senior and operating management, including, most importantly, an effective and independent internal audit function.

Vidéo de formation sur les tendances en matière de gouvernance de sociétés au Canada et aux États-Unis | Une réalisation du CAS

Récemment, le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) a répondu à la demande de l’organisme « ecoDa » (The European Confederation of Directors Associations) de produire une capsule vidéo de formation sur les tendances en matière de gouvernance de sociétés au Canada et aux États-Unis. Cette vidéo sera présentée par ecoDa à chaque offre de son cours « New Governance Challenges for Board Members in Europe » présentée en classe à Bruxelles en Belgique, siège social de l’ecoDa.

Ce mandat a été réalisé avec succès grâce à la contribution de Gilles Bernier, directeur des programmes du CAS, qui a réuni Mme Alexandra Lajoux, Chief Knowledge Officer de la National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) aux États-Unis et M. Chris Bart, Founder and Lead Faculty du Directors College en Ontario.

Intitulé « Where is Corporate Governance Going : The View from Canada and the USA », cette vidéo de formation vise à sensibiliser les participants à l’évolution des pratiques de gouvernance à l’extérieur de l’Europe.

D’une durée de 20 minutes, les experts invités discutent des sujets suivants :

(1) le rôle du CA à l’égard de la stratégie et du risque

(2) la réglementation et les enjeux touchant les investisseurs

(3) les nouvelles tendances en matière de gouvernance des TI et celles touchant la gouvernance des principales sociétés œuvrant dans le secteur technologique

(4) l’importance du talent et de la diversité sur les conseils, ainsi que l’importance de la formation des administrateurs de sociétés.

La capsule vidéo (en anglais) est disponible sur la page You Tube | CASulaval.

Bon visionnement !

ISS propose une nouvelle approche pour définir l’indépendance du président du CA

Quels sont les critères retenus par la firme Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) pour recommander une déviation à la règle d’indépendance du président du conseil d’administration ?

On sait qu’aux États-Unis environ 50 % des entreprises ont des situations de combinaison des rôles de président du conseil et de président et chef de la direction. J’ai souvent écrit dans ce blogue que l’indépendance du président du conseil était très difficile à réaliser aux É.U. et que la gouvernance pouvait en souffrir.

Cependant, on fait face à une résistance féroce dans ce pays et ce n’est que très graduellement que les grandes sociétés américaines se « convertissent ». Même une entreprise comme ISS, qui fait des recommandations aux actionnaires sur les questions de gouvernance, a dû repenser sa politique d’indépendance du président du CA afin de prévoir certaines exceptions.

Carol Bowie, l’auteure de cet article paru dans le Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, est la directrice des recherches à ISS. Elle nous présente les changements apportés aux recommandations de votation aux assemblées annuelles.

En général, ISS recommande l’indépendance absolue de la présidence du conseil d’administration, sauf si l’entreprise rencontre toutes les conditions suivantes :

L’entreprise désigne un administrateur principal (Lead Director) qui est élu par les administrateurs indépendants et qui est soumis à des tâches et des devoirs clairement définis;
Le conseil est au moins aux deux-tiers indépendant;
Les principaux comités du conseil sont complètement indépendants;
L’entreprise a divulgué ses règles de gouvernance;
L’entreprise ne présente pas une faible performance soutenue par rapport aux autres entreprises de son secteur d’activité;
L’entreprise n’a pas de failles problématiques en matière de gouvernance.

Pour une compréhension plus fine des nouvelles règles de votation proposées aux actionnaires, je vous invite à lire ce court billet. Bonne lecture !

ISS Proposes New Approach to Independent Chair Shareholder Proposals

Calls for independent board chairs were the most prevalent type of shareholder proposal offered for consideration at U.S. companies’ annual meetings in 2014. As of June 30, 62 of these proposals have come to a shareholder vote, up from 55 resolutions over the same time period in 2013. Notably, the number of proposals calling for independent board chairs has more than doubled over the past five years. Under the current policy formulation, ISS recommended against 32 of these 62 proposals in 2014. In line with results from recent seasons, independent chair proposals received average support of 31.2 percent of votes cast at 2014 meetings. Only four of these proposals received the support of a majority of votes cast.

Enjeux et obligations du CA | Avis d’experts

Voici le dossier sur la gouvernance publié dans le Journal Les Affaires.

Vous y trouverez une mine d’informations sur divers sujets d’actualité en gouvernance publiés par des experts du domaine.

Bonne lecture !

Former un CA : enjeux et obligations

Mettre sur pied un conseil d’administration est un exercice complexe : les entreprises veulent s’entourer de personnes compétentes, (…) 13 articles

L’activisme actionnarial

par Davies

L’activisme actionnarial a connu une croissance exponentielle au cours de dernières années. « Au …

Une nouvelle réglementation du système de vote par procuration ?

par Davies

En 2010, un examen approfondi par Davies de la structure du vote par procuration donnait naissance à un rapport …

Le rôle du conseil lors d’une OPA non sollicitée

par Davies

Vendredi après la fermeture des marchés, un concurrent important vous appelle : lundi, il annoncera …

L’importance du comité aviseur dans la gouvernance d’une société

par Davies

Souvent considéré comme une première étape avant un conseil d’administration formel …

Situation de crise : le rôle d’un conseil d’administration

par Davies

Une crise, ça se prépare. Le rôle le plus important du conseil n’est pas tant de gérer …

Édition du 20 Septembre 2014 | Diane Bérard

«Aujourd’hui, être administrateur, c’est l’fun à mort!» | Offert par Les Affaires

Édition du 20 Septembre 2014 | Marie Lyan

La rémunération, pas le facteur numéro un | Offert par Les Affaires

Si la participation à certains conseils peut être bénévole, comme dans la plupart des organismes à but non …

Une banque de 240 candidats triés sur le volet chez Desjardins | Offert par Les Affaires

Desjardins capital de risque a mis sur pied une banque de candidats potentiels qui compte près de 240 profils, dont …

Choisir un administrateur, aussi important que recruter un cadre | Offert par Les Affaires

Le choix des administrateurs est déterminant pour le bon fonctionnement du CA. Bien qu’ils soient nommés par la …

Ce qu’il faut savoir avant d’accepter (ou pas) de siéger à un CA | Offert par Les Affaires

Quelles sont les normes en ce qui a trait au nombre d’heures, de tâches et à d’autres responsabilités à confier aux …

Le b-a ba de la gouvernance | Offert par Les Affaires

C omment et quand changer d’administrateurs ? Élus pour des mandats de 2 à 4 ans, les …

S’engager à un CA : pourquoi et comment? | Offert par Les Affaires

Le travail sur un CA vous intéresse, mais vous ne savez pas par où commencer, ni même si vous …

Comment recruter les bons profils d’administrateurs? | Offert par Les Affaires

Lorsqu’il s’agit de recruter un nouvel administrateur, les chemins empruntés par les entreprises …

La séparation des pouvoirs entre PCA et PCD : une règle de bonne gouvernance !

L’article de Paul Hodgson publié dans Fortune affiche est une position très nette en ce qui concerne la séparation des rôles de président du conseil d’administration (PCA) et de président et chef de la direction (PCD) : C’est une mauvaise stratégie sur toute la ligne !

Plusieurs études ont montré l’inefficacité de cette approche, en plus de démontrer clairement les risques de conflits entre le devoir de fiduciaire de l’administrateur et le rôle de premier dirigeant.

Alors que la plupart des modèles de gouvernance dans le monde se fondent sur la séparation des rôles, pourquoi constate-t-on une si forte résistance dans le cas des entreprises américaines ?

L’auteur apporte plusieurs arguments qui expliquent la lenteur des changements aux É.U. Voici un aperçu des grandes lignes de l’article.

Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont appréciés.

Should the chairman be the CEO?

Put simply, no. Splitting the roles saves money and improves a company’s performance. So why isn’t Corporate America listening?

Brian Moynihan, chairman and chief executive officer of Bank of America Corp.

A study published in 2012 found that the cost of paying one person as CEO/chairman was significantly higher than paying two people as CEO and non-executive chairman. The study also found that long-term shareholder returns were significantly better at companies that had separated the roles. This model—an executive CEO and a non-executive chairman—has been adopted in most other economies. Why is the U.S. so resistant?

…

So why is it important to have a separate chairman and CEO? Put simply, the CEO is the primary manager of a company and the chairman is the head of the board, which oversees management. There’s really no good reason why one person should do both jobs. And there’s really no sense in recombining the two roles when a company’s problems are resolved. It’s silly to believe that new problems, the kind that will require an independent board’s insight, won’t arise in the future.

…

Finally, appointing an executive chairman, especially when it is a former CEO, is just a bad idea. It puts two managers—or, in the case of Oracle, three managers—in place where one is sufficient, and there is still no independent check on management. And, really, when a former CEO becomes chair, no one is really in any doubt as to who remains in charge.

…

Most, if not all, companies would be wise to appoint an independent chairman and make the position permanent in the company’s bylaws, so the decision can’t be reversed without shareholder approval.

Les dangers du micro-management !

Le micro-management est certainement un danger qui guette beaucoup d’administrateurs siégeant sur des conseils d’administration, surtout sur des CA d’OBNL.

Le court article publié par Eugene Fram sur son blogue Nonprofit Management montre qu’il y certaines situations de Start-Up qui nécessitent une implication des administrateurs dans la gestion de leur organisation; mais, il n’est pas rare que ce comportement devienne une très mauvaise habitude à plus long terme*.

L’auteur présente les dangers reliés aux comportements des administrateurs qui investissent inconsidérément les rôles de gestionnaires.

Les administrateurs doivent toujours se rappeler qu’ils ont un devoir de fiduciaire envers les actionnaires ou les membres d’une OBNL et qu’ils peuvent difficilement exercer leurs responsabilités s’ils effectuent des tâches de nature managériale.

Cette façon de faire détruit l’initiative des gestionnaires et sape leurs sens des responsabilités.

Bonne lecture !

The Dangers of Board Micromanagement

Micromanaging is a method of management in which an individual closely observes or controls the work of an employee. In comparison to simply giving general direction, the micromanager monitors and evaluates every stage in a process, from beginning to end. This behavior negatively affects efficiency, creativity, trust, communication, problem-solving, and the company’s ability to reach its goals.

The typical micromanager spends their time directing employees rather than empowering them. They are often very insecure. They spend more time with the details of business operations instead of planning the company’s short-term and long-term growth strategies. The fact of the matter is, time DOES equal money. When the designated leader of an organization is wasting time (and therefore money) on overseeing projects instead of focusing on specific growth opportunities, it’s time to reevaluate a few things.

The Need for a Micromanaging Board

Board micromanagement is an appropriate approach when either a nonprofit or for-profit is in a start-up stage. Financial and human resources are modest, and the directors often assume some responsibilities normally executed by compensated staff. The chief executive often has managerial responsibilities as well as a list of low-level operational duties. As extreme examples, I have even seen CEOs install office furniture or install floor tiles.

Long Term Implications

Prolonging these types of activities much after they are needed can imbed micromanagement in the DNA of the organization’s decision-making. Some directors may even obtain ego gratification from continual micromanaging. It can provide more immediate gratifications not found with policy or strategy development. If their mandates fail, they can always quietly blame management for poor implementations. Eventually these failures have an impact on the organization, either by stunting development or causing it to fail. Following are some of the behavioral patterns that become part of the decision-making environment:

Less competent managers are attracted to executive positions – There is a tendency to promote people with good operational records work into key management positions. They may have even taken university courses in management or social dynamics but they fail to realistically implement what they have learned into the dynamics of the real world problems.

Delegating Decisions Upward – Knowing that even small decisions will need to have board review, if not approval, the organization takes no pride in taking initiative, being creative and employing critical thinking. There is also a tendency to shirk responsibility.

More Difficult Recruitment — When the board comes to the conclusion it needs more talented managers, the directors may have trouble understanding why talented recruits reject their offers. Sometimes a talented senior manger may take a position after negotiating an understanding that the micromanaging board will change or modify the way it operates. However changing such an imbedded culture can be difficult and sometimes impossible, if a founder has established a micromanagement environment for the board.

Founders of both nonprofit and for-profit organizations can generate micromanaging boards that last for years beyond their tenures. Succeeding boards can be composed of directors who follow the founders’ management styles and are not capable of excising the unhealthy DNA surging through the organization.

Board micromanagement in either nonprofit or business organizations, when continued beyond a start-up stage, can be can be viewed as an incipient disease. It, at any point, can cause a “heart attack” in the organization.

_______________________________________________________

*Voir aussi Micromanagers: Flushing Companies Down the Toilet, One Detail at a Time

Débat sur la contribution des actionnaires activistes au sein des conseils d’administration

Voyez le panel de discussion sur les aspects pratiques liés aux activités des actionnaires activistes, diffusé par la National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD).

Cette vidéo montre comment les activistes opèrent sur les marchés mais aussi au sein des conseils d’administration. C’est une présentation vraiment très utile pour mieux saisir les différentes catégories d’activistes ainsi que les motivations qui les animent.

Excellente discussion sur la montée de l’activisme. À visionner !

Activist Shareholders in the Boardroom

Activism is on the rise. When and how can activist shareholders in the boardroom be a force for positive change? Directors need to be prepared. Janet Clark, Darren Novak, Brian L. Shorr, and Andrew Shapiro discuss the issues around strategy and corporate governance at an NACD board leadership conference.

The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) is certainly a recognized authority, when it comes to discussing and establishing leading boardroom practices in the United States.

Informed by more than 35 years of experience, NACD delivers insights and resources that more than 14,000 corporate director members from the public, private and non-profit sectors rely upon to make sound strategic decisions and confidently confront complex business challenges.

Notions de gouvernance 101 | Que font les administrateurs ?

Vous trouverez ci-dessous un article de Lucy P. Marcus*, experte en gouvernance, qui présente, de manière vulgarisée, en quoi consiste le travail des administrateurs de sociétés aujourd’hui.

On y trouvera une bonne définition des responsabilités des administrateurs ainsi qu’une métaphore intéressante qui montre comment le travail des administrateurs a considérablement changé au cours des vingt dernières années.

L’auteure distingue entre les activités qui sont de nature « grounding » (connaissances de bases de la performance et des obligations de conformité) et celles, toujours plus importantes, qui sont de l’ordre du « stargazing » (la vision à long terme et la stratégie).

Je vous invite à lire ce bref article qui tient lieu de notions de gouvernance 101 !

Bonne lecture !

Boardroom 101: What, exactly, do directors do?

The boardroom is changing at a fast pace. The agenda items we discuss, the expectations of board directors and the responsibility we hold are all areas that are going through a much needed, and, in my experience, a very welcome, transition.

When my son was around 5 years old, I was preparing for a board meeting and he asked what that was and what I was going to do there.

Lucy P. Marcus*, experte en gouvernance

That’s a question many adults have, too. What, exactly, is a board and what does a board director do?

Searching for an explanation, I finally went with this: « You know about King Arthur and the Round Table? Well, like King Arthur and the Round Table, a group of wise people gather together every month or so. We sit around a table and talk about what the people we are helping have been doing and what they are planning to do next. We try to make sure they are acting honourably and following the law and doing what is best for everyone. »

He seemed fairly satisfied with that answer, but it got me thinking — was the metaphor apt? Is that really what directors are doing in practice?

It does seem sometimes like the board is an arcane and distant body. A caricature would be one where the doors open with a whoosh to reveal suited people sitting around a table in an oak panelled room, having confidential discussions in hushed tones, drawing on deep expertise and thinking big thoughts. And of course, those discussions would be spoken in a special « thee and thou » language.

There are parts of that caricature which do ring true. We board directors generally do sit around a table, and I’d like to think we generally have robust discussions. Strangely, we do often speak in formal ways, referring to “Mr Chairman” and the like. As for the “deep expertise” and “big thoughts” part, I’m not sure we are always well equipped with enough information to make decisions.

Changes afoot

The boardroom is changing at a fast pace. The agenda items we discuss, the expectations of board directors and the responsibility we hold are all areas that are going through a much needed, and, in my experience, a very welcome, transition.

Board agendas used to be rigid and mostly focused on traditional oversight topics such as compensation and compliance. That mandate has grown to include a great deal more.

To better understand the changes and how they affect our job as directors, it is useful to think of the tasks and the agenda items of the board as being broadly divided into a balance of what I call “grounding” and “stargazing”.

The “grounding” side consists of what you might think of as the tick-boxing items: questions around the structure and performance of the organisation in the “here and now”. Is it behaving legally and responsibly? Is it following the rules and regulations? Are its financial accounts in good order? Does it meet to the expectations not just of its shareholders but also of other stakeholders in the broader ecosystem in which it operates?

The “stargazing” side is about strategy. This is the essence of what and where the organisation wants to be in the future. It is about asking questions about how the sector is changing and how the organisation plans to grow. It is also about challenging it to make the necessary changes as the world around it changes too, and to be a driver of positive change. It is about building innovation and a sense of excitement about the future into the DNA.

The old agendas were heavily weighted towards the “grounding” side of the equation, but today, a good balance of “grounding” and “stargazing” is vital to preparing the organisation for the future. The board must look closely at the here and now, making sure everything is working correctly; otherwise we run the risk of missing signs of everything from neglect to malfeasance. We must also look into the next 10 to 15 years to make sure that the organisation has a robust future to look forward to.

Responsibilities increase

The world around us has changed at an exponential pace. Companies are seen as having a greater responsibility for the role they play in the health and well-being of society. They also bear some responsibility for the individuals that they touch, be it employees, partners, or people who live in the community. At the same time, social media and niche publications amplify the voices of shareholders, communities and consumers. Also, boards and companies no longer operate in a black box — with the advent of everything from Twitter to Google Earth, there is more transparency than ever before.

Partly as a consequence of these changes in the boardroom and beyond, the responsibilities and expectations of directors, particularly independent directors, have increased exponentially. It is not sufficient to skim the board papers, ask a couple of superficial questions, eat the lovely meal, and be on your merry way home.

Board directors are now, rightly, expected to read the papers, come prepared, and ask the tough questions. Though the boardroom has traditionally been a black box room, much has changed. Individual directors will increasingly find themselves being held to account for the choices that they have made in the boardroom in many areas, be it around executive compensation or “innovative” tax strategies.

It means that we as directors must be more diligent and make sure we are only voting ‘yes’ for things when we have a thorough understanding of what the implications of the ‘yes’ is — both now and in the longer term. We must take into account those whose lives are impacted directly, such as people who work for the company and those who live in the area where the company sits, as well as the people who use the company’s products and services. It also about those who are impacted indirectly, such as shareholders whose life savings may be at stake. Those are all positives, in my view.

In the end, if we are to live up to the ideal of King Arthur and the Round Table, chivalrous knights who are guided by the ideals of courtesy, courage, and honour, we must ask ourselves every time we gather, “Why are we here and who do we serve?” so that the decisions we take are made wisely and judiciously, not only to serve the needs of the few, but to ensure that we help the organisation to live up to its potential, and do so in an honourable way.

_________________________

*Lucy P. Marcus, CEO, Non-Exec Board Director, Prof IE Biz School, Project Syndicate & BBC columnist.

L’audit interne au cœur d’une grande bataille !

Je partage avec vous un récent article que Denis Lefort, expert conseil en gouvernance et audit interne, m’a fait parvenir, accompagné de ses commentaires.

Cet article de Mike Jacka* est paru dans Internal Auditor Magazine. Toute personne préoccupée par l’importance de cette fonction devrait prendre connaissance de cette mise en garde.

« En lisant ce bref article, vous saisirez rapidement que son auteur est d’avis que l’audit interne et les autres fonctions d’assurance des organisations (gestion des risques, conformité, sécurité et autres) sont entrées dans une guerre de juridiction… Et que l’audit interne ne peut agir comme si elle était comme la Suisse, neutre et inattaquable…!!!

L’auteur est ainsi d’avis que l’audit interne doit préparer à la fois sa stratégie de défense et d’attaque pour contrer les coups durs présents et à venir… »

Bonne lecture !

Internal Audit Is in the Midst of a Great War

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation recently posted an interesting piece titled « Compliance or Legal? The Board’s Duty to Assure Compliance. » I know it all sounds a little boring, but trust me on this one — there is interesting information here. Take some time to read through it before we dive in.

(One very quick, very important aside. I came across this article as a part of The IIA’s SmartBrief — a weekly « snapshot » of news and issues internal auditors might care about. To receive the newsletter you must « opt in. » I cannot urge you enough to opt in. No puffery here. Seldom does a week go by where I don’t find at least one nugget I can use. If you aren’t receiving it, you can opt in here.)

If you have been paying attention to the discussions that are going on regarding internal audit’s evolving role you were probably gobsmacked by the similarities between those discussions and what is being said in this article. Take the opening sentence: « A series of developments threaten to blur the important distinction between the corporation’s legal and compliance functions. » Make a few changes and you are talking about the dilemma internal audit is facing. « A series of developments threaten to blur the important distinction between the organization’s internal audit department and [insert your favorite assurance provider’s name here]. »

There it is in a nutshell, the crux of the battle currently being waged over the role of internal audit and others within the organization.

Wait, let’s back up a second. Did you miss that there is a war going on? Let’s take a quick look.

I have a good friend who is a CAE. In that role he is also in charge of risk management. We often talk about the potential conflict that exists with those dual roles. He is not alone. I have talked with other audit leaders who are being approached about audit taking on the role of risk. Not a bad fit. We are risk experts, we have the communication and relationship skills, and there should be a definite meshing of gears between audit and risk.

On the other hand, I have also heard from others who face the opposite issue; they are under pressure to have internal audit placed under the jurisdiction of the risk officer. « Wait a minute, » you say, « That is a very bad idea: a serious problem, a conflict of interests, a subversion of our objectivity, an invasion on our independence. » Our list of reasons why this shouldn’t happen is quite long.

When the shoe is on the other foot the bunions become just a tad more obvious.

And it is not just the risk function. While not as common, I am hearing similar discussions around such functions as compliance, corporate security, finance, quality assurance, and, yes, even legal. In some cases the discussion is around audit taking on part of the role; in others it is about audit becoming a part of the other function.

Why are we suddenly seeing this land grab?

Governance has become an important topic at the executive and board level. (Definitely a good thing.) Assurance providers (compliance, legal, risk, et al) realize the way to raise the esteem with which the board and executives hold them is to take on a greater piece of the governance pie. The pushing and shoving starts. Escalation ensues. And we find ourselves in the midst of a jurisdictional war.

And while internal audit would like to believe we are above the fray (we are independent, we are objective, we are internal audit, hear us roar), unless we recognize the existence of this war — unless we are willing to take up arms and join in the fray — we will find ourselves trivialized, the core values we provide handed off to the victors.

We think we are Switzerland. But there is no such thing as neutrality in this battle.

So, with that background, let’s return to the article previously referenced. The contents provide a good indication of the type of arguments internal audit will encounter. Two examples:

The author states that a forced separation of compliance from under legal would jeopardize the ability of the organization to preserve attorney-client privilege. Cold chills went up my spine as I read this. I still vividly recall similar debates from 20 years ago when the legal department argued they should have more direct control over internal audit in order to preserve attorney-client privilege. We won. But it is obvious that the ugly head of that particular argument continues to rise again and again.

The article quotes compliance thought leaders as saying that the role of « guardian of corporate reputation » is exclusively reserved for the corporate compliance officer; that the compliance officer is the organizational « subject matter expert » for ethics and culture. The author of the article states that this is « contrary to long standing public discourse that frames the lawyer’s role as a primary guardian of the organizational reputation. » My first, knee-jerk reaction is that internal audit should be the guardian of reputation and the subject matter expert. But once I put my knee back where it belongs, I realize it is probably more true that the attempt to define any one department as guardian or expert is a fool’s game. Everyone with any governance role should have the protection of reputation, ethics, and culture as their No. 1 responsibility.

There is much more in the article and many more thoughtful and reasoned arguments. And it would be quite easy to say « Let them duke it out. Their arguments are not important to us. » However, that is exactly why we should be paying attention. The article contains the points that will be used in the battle — points to be used against us and points we can use in our defense.

We are in a war. And audit cannot sit back and say, « We have independence; we are safe and above the fray. » No. They will have an eye on our « turf, » also. And who’s to say that some of their turf shouldn’t be ours. I’m not saying we break out the bayonets and start going after some of the unwounded, but I am saying we have to recognize the existence of a battle and be willing to take a stand — be willing to say what it is we do, why it is important, and why we should have those responsibilities.

What are your thoughts? What is internal audit’s role regarding the organization’s approach to risk, governance, compliance, legal, etc.? If we are more involved, is there a conflict? If the lines blur, does it have a negative impact on the company? Is there really a war brewing? And what might this have to do with the future (if there is going to be a future) of internal audit?

_____________________________________

*Mike Jacka, CIA, CPA, CPCU, CLU, worked in internal audit for nearly 30 years at Farmers Insurance Group.

Comment les principaux intéressés peuvent-ils évaluer la qualité d’un conseil d’administration ?

Que peut faire un actionnaire ou un investisseur pour évaluer la compétence d’un conseil d’administration et se former une opinion sur l’efficacité de son rôle de fiduciaire ?

Voici un article, publié par la rédaction d’Investopedia, qui présente un checklist en cinq points, simple mais fort utile, pour mieux savoir quoi regarder dans la documentation publique.

Bien sûr, votre évaluation ne sera pas nécessairement concluante mais je suis assuré que si vous portez une attention spéciale aux 5 éléments présentés ci-dessous, vous aurez une bien meilleure appréciation des qualités du conseil et de ses administrateurs.

Quels autres facteurs considérez-vous dans l’évaluation des compétences d’un Board ? Bonne lecture !

Evaluating The Board Of Directors

You can learn a lot from looking at the disclosures made about a company’s board of directors in its annual report, but it takes time and knowledge to pick up clues on the level of quality of a company’s governance as reflected in its board’s composition and responsibilities. (For related reading, see An Investor’s Checklist To Financial Footnotes and Footnotes: Early Warning Signs For Investors.)

In theory, the board is responsible to the shareholders and is supposed to govern a company’s management. But in many instances, the board has become a servant of the chief executive officer (CEO), who is typically also the chairman of the board. The role of the board of directors has increasingly come under scrutiny in light of corporate scandals such as those at Enron, WorldCom and HealthSouth, in which the board of directors failed to act in investors’ best interests. Although the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made corporations more accountable, investors should still pay attention to what a corporation’s board of directors is up to. Here we’ll show you what the board of directors can tell you about how a company is being run.

The Checklist
According to an October 27, 2003, Wall Street Journal article, a checklist was developed by the Corporate Library to help investors evaluate the objectivity and effectiveness of a board. According to this checklist, investors should examine:

1. Size of the Board
There is no universal agreement on the optimum size of a board of directors. A large number of members represents a challenge in terms of using them effectively and/or having any kind of meaningful individual participation. According to the Corporate Library’s study, the average board size is 9.2 members, and most boards range from 3 to 31 members. Some analysts think the ideal size is seven.

In addition, there are two critical board committees that must be made up of independent members:

The compensation committee

The audit committee

The minimum number for each committee is three. This means that a minimum of six board members is needed so that no one is on more than one committee. Having members doing double duty may compromise the important wall between audit and compensation, which helps avoid any conflicts of interest. Members serving on a number of other boards may not devote adequate time to their responsibilities.

The seventh member is the chairperson of the board. It’s the responsibility of the chairperson to make sure the board is functioning properly and the CEO is fulfilling his or her duty and following the directives of the board. A conflict of interest is created if the CEO is also the chairperson of the board.

To staff any additional committees, such as nominating or governance, additional people may be necessary. However, having more than nine members may make the board too big to function effectively. (For background reading, see The Basics Of Corporate Structure.)

2. The Degree of Independence: Insiders and Outsiders
A key attribute of an effective board is that it is comprised of a majority of independent outsiders. While not necessarily true, a board with a majority of insiders is often viewed as being stacked with sycophants, especially in cases where the CEO is also the chairman of the board.

An outsider is someone who has never worked at the company, is not related to any of the key employees and has never worked for a major supplier, customer or service provider, such as lawyers, accountants, consultants, investment bankers, etc. While this definition of independent outsiders is clear, you’d be surprised at the number of times it is misapplied. Too often, the « outsider » label is given to the retired CEO or a relative when that person is actually an insider with conflicts of interest.The Wall Street Journal article found that independent outsiders made up 66% of all boards and 72% of Standard & Poor’s (S&P) boards. The larger the number of outside board members the better. This makes the board more independent and allows it to provide a higher level of corporate governance to shareholders, particularly if the position of chairman of the board is separated from the CEO and is held by an outsider.

3. Committees
There are four important board committees: executive, audit, compensation and nominating. There may be more committees depending on corporate philosophy, which is determined by an ethics committee and special circumstances relating to a particular company’s line of business. Let’s take a closer look at the four main committees:

The Executive Committee
The executive committee, is made up of a small number of board members that are readily accessible and easily convened, to decide on matters subject to board consideration but must be decided on expeditiously, such as a quarterly meeting. Executive committee proceedings are always reported to and reviewed by the full board. Just as with the full board, investors should prefer that independent directors make up the majority of an executive committee.

The Audit Committee
The audit committee works with the auditors to make sure that the books are correct and that there are no conflicts of interest between the auditors and the other consulting firms employed by the company. Ideally, the chair of the audit committee is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Often, a CPA is not on the audit committee, let alone on the board. The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) requires that the audit committee include a financial expert, but this qualification is typically met by a retired banker, even though that person’s ability to catch fraud may be questionable. The audit committee should meet at least four times a year in order to review the most recent audit. An additional meeting should be held if there are other issues that need to be addressed

The Compensation Committee.
The compensation committee is responsible for setting the pay of top executives. It seems obvious that the CEO or other people with conflicts of interest should not be on this committee, but you’d be surprised at the number of companies that allow just that. It is important to check if the members of the compensation board are also on the compensation committees of other firms because of the potential conflict of interest. The compensation committee should meet at least twice a year. Having only one meeting may be a sign that the committee meets just to approve a pay package that was created by the CEO or a consultant without much debate. (To learn more, read Evaluating Executive Compensation.)

The Nominating Committee
This committee is responsible for nominating people to the board. The nomination process should aim to bring on people with independence and a skill set currently lacking on the board.M

4. Other Commitments and Time Constraints
The number of boards and committees a board member is on is a key consideration when judging the effectiveness of a member.

The following chart from the survey shows the time commitments of board members of the 1,700 largest U.S. public companies according the the study’s 2003 data. This indicates that the majority of board members sit on no more than three boards. What this data does not specify is the number of committees to which these people belong.

You’ll often find that independent board members serve on both the audit and compensation committees and are also on three or more other boards. You have to wonder how much time a board member can devote to a company’s business if the person is on multiple boards. This situation also raises questions about the supply of independent outside directors. Are these people pulling double duty because there’s a lack of qualified outsiders?

5. Related Transactions
Companies must disclose any transactions with executives and directors in a financial note entitled « Related Transactions. » This discloses actions or relationships that cause conflicts of interest, such as doing business with a director’s company or having relatives of the CEO receiving professional fees from the company.

The Bottom Line
The composition and performance of a board of directors says a lot about its responsibilities to a company’s shareholders. A board loses credibility if its objectivity and independence are compromised by material shortcomings in this checklist. Investors are poorly served by substandard governance practices.

Clarifications au sujet des deux principaux systèmes de gouvernance | One Tier vs Two Tier

Ici, en Amérique du Nord, on entend quelquefois parler des distinctions entre le modèle de gouvernance européen et le modèle de gouvernance à l’américaine. Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, une brève synthèse des particularités des modèles de gouvernance européens eu égard à la distinction one tier/two tier systèmes de gouvernance.

Cette conclusions est basée sur une recherche de type « Benchmarking » conduite par ecoDa* (The European Confederation of Directors Associations) auprès de ses membres des Instituts de gouvernance européens ainsi qu’auprès d’autres membres non-européens, tel que le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS).

À la suite de l’extrait présentant les grandes lignes de ces modèles de gouvernance, vous trouverez un portrait plus précis des principales différences entre les deux systèmes, dont les deux plus représentatifs (UK, One Tier; Allemagne, Two Tier).

Bonne lecture !

Although the European Union tries to undermine the differences, the corporate law and corporate governance is highly diversified throughout Europe, embedded in a long history of specific societal and economic approaches towards the organisation of the business world, aligning governance with these quite different societal priorities.

In the two tier system, supervisory board members control the strategy but don’t define it. In the two tier system, there is also a clear cut between management and control responsibilities. In the one tier system, the board governs the company e. g. controls the direction, defines the strategic options and can address any issues related to the performance of the company.

People advocating for the two tier model always point out that having distance between management and oversight creates independence that makes sense. People defending the one-tier system consider that having executives and non-executives on the same board provides a better flow of information and helps to overcome problems that boards can face in understanding what is going on in the company. The one-tier system would also enable the non-executive to see how executive operate together as a team. The non-executive would be more involved in forward-looking of the strategy. As a downside effect of the one tier system, it is difficult for non-executives to draw distinction between monitoring and oversight.

The one tier system is often seen as an English model while the two-tier system is more of a German style. But the reality is more complex than that over the different countries in the European Union. The Nordic Corporate Governance (CG) model is quite unique with a strictly hierarchical governance structure and a direct chain of command among the general meeting, the board and the CEO. The Italian CG model is also special with the distinction between the managing body (sole administrator or, in the collective form of a board of directors) and the controlling organ (so called “board of statutory auditors”)

One-tier board system Two-tier board system

Organisation

A single board. A supervisory body and a management body.

Composition

Mixed, executive and non-executive directors may serve on the board. Separate, executive and non-executive directors serve on separate boards (i.e., a supervisory board composed exclusively of non-executive directors and a management board composed exclusively of executive directors).

Organisation

Unitary Binary

Committees

Mandatory or recommended Supervisory and advisory committees(Mandatory) oversight and advisory committees such as the audit committee, the remuneration committee and the nomination (appointments) committee, composed of a majority of non-executive directors, one or more of whom must be independent.Supervisory committee

Optional committee entrusted with supervising the company, composed of both executive and non-executive directors.

Usually differs slightly from a true supervisory board (as found in the two-tier system) in terms of powers, composition and role.

Mostly found in countries which present characteristics of a one-tier system while incorporating certain features of a two-tier system.

OptionalHistorically not required but oversight and advisory committees are increasingly important in the two-tier system as well.

Roles

Board of directors Managerial roleDirection and executive actsDecision-taking, management and oversightPerformance enhancement

Supervisory role

Accountability

Strategic and financial oversight

Management board Managerial roleDirection and executive actsDecision-taking and managementPerformance enhancement

Service and strategic role

Supervisory board

Supervisory role

Accountability

Decision-taking and oversight

Monitoring role

Strategic and financial oversight

CEO duality

Allowed.The same person can serve as both CEO and chair of the board of directors (although this is generally not recommended by corporate governance practices).

Restricted.No CEO duality (although the CEO can sometimes be a member or attend meetings of the supervisory board.)

Executive directors

Appointed by the general meeting of shareholders, based on a proposal by the board or appointments committee (if any).A director may be appointed by the board of directors when the term of office of another director comes to an end, in order to prevent the board from being paralyzed, for example if the board no longer has a sufficient number of members as required by law or the articles (co-optation procedure).The appointment of a co-opted director must be confirmed at the first general meeting of shareholders following his or her appointment. Appointed by the supervisory board or the general meeting of shareholders, based on a proposal by the board or the appointments committee (if there is one).

Non-Executive (supervisory directors)

Idem. Appointed by the general meeting of shareholders or, based on a proposal by the supervisory board or the appointments committee (if there is one).

Conflicts perspective

Negatively associated with the separation of decision-management and decision-oversight roles due to its composition (a majority of executive directors) and unitary structure.Diffusion of tasks and responsibilities weakens the non-executive directors’ ability to oversee the implementation of decisions, especially where executive and non-executive directors face the same potential legal liability.Higher risk of conflicts of interest between management and shareholders.

To avoid conflicts of interest, it is often recommended that the one-tier board be composed of a majority of non-executive directors, due to (i)

their experience and knowledge, (ii) their contacts, which may enhance management’s ability to secure external resources, and (iii) their independence from the CEO.

In companies which have achieved a certain level of development, risks of conflicts of interest are often reduced through the creation of committees allowing these functions to be segregated. In addition, legal provisions aimed at preventing and resolving conflict of interest exist in most jurisdictions.

Positively associated with the separation of decision-management and decision-oversight roles, due to the composition of the supervisory board (independent directors) which ensures independence and its binary structure.No diffusion of tasks and responsibilities.

Lower risk of conflicts of interest between management and shareholders.

(Dis)advantages

AdvantagesSpirit of partnership and mutual respect between directors, which allows greater interaction amongst all board members.Non-executive directors have more contact with the company itself and are more involved in the decision-making process. Non-executive directors have direct access to information.

Decision-making process is faster.

A lighter administrative burden as only a single management body needs to hold meetings and only a single set of minutes need be drawn up.

Board meetings take place more regularly.

Disadvantages

A single body is entrusted with both managing and supervising the company’s operations.

More difficult to guarantee the independence of board members and there is a greater risk of non-executive directors aligning too much with executive directors.

More liability for non-executive directors.

Advantages Clear distinction between the supervisory and management functions within the company.Clear distinctions of liabilities between the members of the supervisory and management bodies.Supervisory board members are more independent.

Clear separation of the roles of chairman and CEO.

Disadvantages

It is more difficult for directors to build relationships of trust, thereby potentially undermining communication between the two boards.

Supervisory board members only receive limited information (from the management board) and at a later stage (decreased involvement). There is a heightened risk of the supervisory board not discovering shortcomings or discovering them too late.

Decision-making process is delayed due to less frequent supervisory board meetings.

Non-executive directors face several challenges which appear to be typical of the two-tier board model, such as difficulties (i) building relationships of trust, thereby potentially undermining communication and flows of information between the two boards, and (ii) fully understanding and ratifying strategic initiatives by the management board, thereby frustrating the decision-making processes.

_______________________________________________

ecoDa (The European Confederation of Directors Associations) is a not-for-profit association based in Brussels, which acts as the « European voice of directors » and represents around 60,000 board directors from across the European Union (EU) member states. The organisation acts as a forum for debate and public advocacy by influencing the public policy debate at EU level and by promoting appropriate director training, professional development and boardroom best practice.

Toute la lumière sur les attentes envers les C.A. | L’état de situation selon Lipton

Aujourd’hui, je veux vous faire partager le point de vue de Martin Lipton*, expert dans les questions de fusion et d’acquisition ainsi que dans les affaires se rapportant à la gouvernance des entreprises, sur les enjeux des C.A.. L’auteur met l’accent sur les pratiques exemplaires en gouvernance et sur les comportements attendus des conseils d’administration.

Ce texte, paru sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance,résume très bien les devoirs et les responsabilités des administrateurs de sociétés de nos jours et renforce la nécessité, pour les conseils d’administration, de gérer les situations d’offres hostiles.

Bonne lecture ! Êtes-vous d’accord avec les attentes énoncées ? Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.

The Spotlight on Boards

The ever evolving challenges facing corporate boards prompts an updated snapshot of what is expected from the board of directors of a major public company—not just the legal rules, but also the aspirational “best practices” that have come to have almost as much influence on board and company behavior.

Boards are expected to:

Establish the appropriate “Tone at the Top” to actively cultivate a corporate culture that gives high priority to ethical standards, principles of fair dealing, professionalism, integrity, full compliance with legal requirements and ethically sound strategic goals.

Choose the CEO, monitor his or her performance and have a succession plan in case the CEO becomes unavailable or fails to meet performance expectations.

Maintain a close relationship with the CEO and work with management to encourage entrepreneurship, appropriate risk taking, and investment to promote the long-term success of the company (despite the constant pressures for short-term performance) and to navigate the dramatic changes in domestic and world-wide economic, social and political conditions. Approve the company’s annual operating plan and long-term strategy, monitor performance and provide advice to management as a strategic partner.

Develop an understanding of shareholder perspectives on the company and foster long-term relationships with shareholders, as well as deal with the requests of shareholders for meetings to discuss governance and the business portfolio and operating strategy. Evaluate the demands of corporate governance activists, make changes that the board believes will improve governance and resist changes that the board believes will not be constructive. Work with management and advisors to review the company’s business and strategy, with a view toward minimizing vulnerability to attacks by activist hedge funds.

Organize the business, and maintain the collegiality, of the board and its committees so that each of the increasingly time-consuming matters that the board and board committees are expected to oversee receives the appropriate attention of the directors.

Plan for and deal with crises, especially crises where the tenure of the CEO is in question, where there has been a major disaster or a risk management crisis, or where hard-earned reputation is threatened by a product failure or a socio-political issue. Many crises are handled less than optimally because management and the board have not been proactive in planning to deal with crises, and because the board cedes control to outside counsel and consultants.

Determine executive compensation to achieve the delicate balance of enabling the company to recruit, retain and incentivize the most talented executives, while also avoiding media and populist criticism of “excessive” compensation and taking into account the implications of the “say-on-pay” vote.

Face the challenge of recruiting and retaining highly qualified directors who are willing to shoulder the escalating work load and time commitment required for board service, while at the same time facing pressure from shareholders and governance advocates to embrace “board refreshment”, including issues of age, length of service, independence, gender and diversity. Provide compensation for directors that fairly reflects the significantly increased time and energy that they must now spend in serving as board and board committee members. Evaluate the board’s performance, and the performance of the board committees and each director.

Determine the company’s reasonable risk appetite (financial, safety, cyber, political, reputation, etc.), oversee the implementation by management of state-of-the-art standards for managing risk, monitor the management of those risks within the parameters of the company’s risk appetite and seek to ensure that necessary steps are taken to foster a culture of risk-aware and risk-adjusted decision-making throughout the organization.

Oversee the implementation by management of state-of-the-art standards for compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, monitor compliance and respond appropriately to “red flags.”

Take center stage whenever there is a proposed transaction that creates a real or perceived conflict between the interests of stockholders and those of management, including takeovers and attacks by activist hedge funds focused on the CEO.

Recognize that shareholder litigation against the company and its directors is part of modern corporate life and should not deter the board from approving a significant acquisition or other material transaction, or rejecting a merger proposal or a hostile takeover bid, all of which is within the business judgment of the board.

Set high standards of social responsibility for the company, including human rights, and monitor performance and compliance with those standards.

Oversee relations with government, community and other constituents.

Review corporate governance guidelines and committee charters and tailor them to promote effective board functioning.

To meet these expectations, it will be necessary for major public companies

(1) to have a sufficient number of directors to staff the requisite standing and special committees and to meet expectations for diversity;

(2) to have directors who have knowledge of, and experience with, the company’s businesses, even if this results in the board having more than one director who is not “independent”;

(3) to have directors who are able to devote sufficient time to preparing for and attending board and committee meetings;

(4) to provide the directors with regular tutorials by internal and external experts as part of expanded director education; and

(5) to maintain a truly collegial relationship among and between the company’s senior executives and the members of the board that enhances the board’s role both as strategic partner and as monitor.

________________________________________________

* Martin Lipton is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy

Contribution des administrateurs externes à la vision des entreprises

Michael Evans, l’auteur de ce court article publié dans Forbes, montre les nombreux avantages des entreprises (jeunes, petites, familiales, entrepreneuriales …) à recruter un ou quelques administrateurs externes au conseil d’administration.

Les administrateurs externes doivent être judicieusement choisis afin de compter sur leurs expériences du domaine d’affaires ainsi que sur leurs capacités à exposer plus de perspective et de vision.

L’auteur présente également les quatre rôles fondamentaux que les administrateurs externes peuvent contribuer à clarifier.

Voici un extrait de la première partie de l’article. Bonne lecture !

Outside Board Members Bring Needed Experience And Perspective To Your Company

Middle-market companies often operate as small fiefdoms under the control of the king, or to use a business term, the CEO. Very few mid-sized companies have a formal board of directors and for those that do have boards, CEOs tend to populate them with family, friends, and internal management. The theory is that board members do not know the business of the company, cost too much, and often do not provide value. In some cases, those conclusions are often true. But in many cases, the establishment of an effective board and the inclusion of outside board members have saved many a company from ruin.

It is estimated that less than 5 percent of middle-market companies have an established board or advisory board, the primary reason for such a low percentage is that small- and middle-market businesses believe they are smart enough not to need a board, think it is too expensive, or believe it would constrain their decision-making abilities.

With the demands on CEOs — including ongoing regulatory changes, pressure from family and other founders, the rise of new competitors and business models, and the need to transform businesses at an ever-quickening pace — it may be time for you to get some help and add an outside director to your board.

Outside directors bring outside experience and perspective to the board. They keep a watchful eye on the inside directors and on the way the organization is run, and provide guidance as to risk management and good corporate governance practices. Outside directors are often useful in handling disputes between inside directors, or between shareholders and the board.

Dix pratiques exemplaires à l’intention des membres de comités d’audit

Vous trouverez ci-dessous un article publié par Naomi Snyder* dans BankDirector.com qui présente une synthèse des caractéristiques des comités d’audit performants dans le domaine bancaire.

Bien sûr, ces pratiques peuvent aussi s’appliquer à tout autre comité d’audit. Bonne lecture !

10 Best Practices for Audit Committee Members

Serving on the audit committee can be one of the toughest jobs on the board, which is why audit committee members often are paid more than what members of other committees receive. Audit committee members have more duties than ever before, thanks to heightened regulatory scrutiny that banks have received in recent years, and are under more pressure than ever to get it right.

Sal Inserra, a partner at accounting and advisory firm Crowe Horwath LLP, spoke at Bank Director’s Bank Audit Committee Conference in Chicago recently, and laid out some of the qualities of highly functioning audit committee members. This is not his list, but was created based on his talk.

Be a skeptic.
“If you notice inconsistencies, ask the question,’’ Inserra said. “It’s not necessarily wrong. You are just trying to find out.”

Understand your business.
If you enter a new business line, you must understand that new line of business. Trust departments present banks with a minefield of compliance issues, for example.

Meet with regulators.
Examiners are more likely now to have a discussion with board members than years past. Regulators are interested in learning about the audit committee’s understanding of the risks in the organization. Attend some meetings with examiners to get a flavor for the bank’s relationship with its regulators and to prepare you for any problems ahead of time.

Support the internal audit department and its findings.
Make sure the department is adequately funded and staffed. “I have seen way too many situations where internal audit was not a functional unit of the bank because no one respected them,’’ Inserra said. The internal audit chief should report directly to the audit committee chairman.

Look for red flags.
Red flags include when management delivers the audit committee book without sufficient time for members to digest it before the audit committee meetings. Other red flags include problematic findings that remain unaddressed between audits.

Take control of the audit committee meetings.
Don’t let management control the meeting agenda by burying you under a mountain of detail. It’s your meeting. Put the priorities at the beginning of the meeting, instead of starting with the easiest things. Get summaries of reports with the most important points highlighted. Who can read a 600 page audit in two nights?

Make sure every member is contributing.
Three to six people should serve on the audit committee. If it’s politically problematic to remove someone who is no longer contributing, add people you do need on the audit committee.

Hold management accountable.
Actively monitor management’s action plans. If remediation plans aren’t followed or completed on time, why not?

Communicate with internal and external auditors.
Be proactive. Have executive sessions with members of the internal auditing staff on a regular basis, as well as with external auditors.

Improve the committee’s knowledge of technology by recruiting an IT expert to be a member, or hire a consultant to advise the board.
If you are getting third party reports on your bank’s information security you don’t fully understand, then you need help.

Of course, there are many more aspects of being a great audit committee member. This is just a small sample. But at a time when audit committees have an increasing amount of responsibilities, it is important that the audit committee performs at the top of its game.

______________________________________________

*Naomi Snyder is the managing editor for Bank Director, an information resource for directors and officers of financial companies.

Enquête 2014 sur le leadership du conseil d’administration | Korn Ferry

Ce billet publié par Robert E. Hallagan et Dennis Carey, vice-présidents de Korn Ferry, présente une partie d’une étude conduite par l’Institut Korn Ferry portant sur le leadership du C.A.

On constatera que la séparation des fonctions de président du conseil et de président et chef de la direction s’effectue lentement chez nos voisins du sud ! En effet, bien que tous les experts de la gouvernance reconnaissent le bien fondé d’avoir un président du conseil indépendant, on note un certain progrès à cet égard mais il y a encore loin de la coupe aux lèvres, surtout dans les grandes entreprises cotées aux ÉU.

Voici un aperçu de l’introduction de cette étude. Je vous invite à lire le document complet pour avoir une meilleure idée des résultats de l’enquête. Bonne lecture !

Survey of Board Leadership 2014

This is our second annual report on board leadership.

The numbers and trends are interesting but the subtleties and substance behind them are extremely valuable as the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) and Korn Ferry continue their study of high-performing boards. The thoughtful selection and performance of board leaders is one of two pillars of leadership that drive long-term shareholder value—the other being the CEO of the company.

There is universal agreement that each board must have an independent leader but how each company has achieved this takes many shapes.

In this year’s report, we see continued evidence of a slow and deliberate trend toward separation of the roles, higher in mid-cap companies than the large-cap S&P 500. Key catalysts included activism, and a transition of CEO leadership that prompted the board to elect to separate the roles.

…

There is universal agreement that each board must have an independent leader but how each company has achieved this takes many shapes.

In our first report we stated our commitment to remaining an honest broker of facts in the performance debate. Many proponents of separation claim it will enhance long-term shareholder value, yet no study to date has rendered conclusive evidence in either direction. We have now isolated companies that have made the change, documented their performance before and after, and will soon be comfortable debating the results. While we clearly understand the danger in relying solely on numbers and acknowledge that there are many potential ways to slice the data, we believe our attempt to get at the “facts” will generate engaged, healthy debate among our members and clients. We look forward to a rich dialogue at NACD conferences to come.

Methodology and approach

This study examined changes to and trends in board leadership structure for 900 US companies, namely the constituents of Standard & Poor’s Large Cap 500 Index (S&P 500) and the Mid-Cap Index (the S&P 400) as of December 31, 2012. Companies are added to the S&P 500 if they have unadjusted market capitalization of $4.6 billion or more, and to the S&P 400 if they have unadjusted market capitalization of between $1.2 billion and $5.1 billion. The S&P 500 Index represents a barometer of the state of the largest publicly traded US corporations, and the majority of the research and analysis in this study focuses on this group. To expand the scope beyond large-cap companies, and thus broaden the findings of the research, the constituents of the S&P 400 were also examined in detail.

For each company, we looked at the type of board leadership structure in place at the time of its proxy filing for each year between 2008 and 2012. This report focuses primarily on the leadership structure in place as of year-end 2012, and examines each company’s overall leadership approach as it pertains to the roles of chairman, CEO, and lead director (if at all). Proxy filings, annual reports, and the corporate governance section of company websites comprise the source documents for these determinations. Please note that numbers shown in this report reflect actual statistics and not data projected from a random sampling of companies.

In addition, each company that had a change in its leadership structure since January 1, 2003 (by replacing either the CEO or chairman) was investigated to understand the reason for the change, and additional details—such as tenure, age, education, committee responsibilities—were sought for the incoming chairman. Company and outside press reports and news articles were used to determine the reason for an executive’s departure, and executive biographical and company data were culled from secondary sources, including Reuters, Businessweek, MarketWatch, and Morningstar.

The trend to separate roles continues to move steadily forward.

Though board composition is not likely to be an area marked by rapid, significant change, the slow and steady trend to separate chairman and CEO roles continued in 2012. By the end of 2012, 56% of S&P 500 chairmen also held the position of CEO. This marks a significant departure from 2009, when 63% of all chairmen also held the company’s highest executive office. The change comes almost equally from increases in non-executive chairmen and chairmen who have some past affiliation with the company; additional analysis in this report will examine what types of companies are likely to favor the different approaches.

Click image to enlarge

While it is reasonable to expect this gradual trend to continue, particularly as activist shareholders keep pushing for separation, some large companies, including IBM, Disney, and Urban Outfitters, are moving in the opposite direction and are recombining roles. In the case of IBM and Disney, the recombinations are part of longterm succession, though IBM Chairman-CEO Ginny Rometty added the Chairman role just 10 months after becoming CEO—faster than many expected. In the case of Urban Outfitters, founder Richard Hayne reclaimed the CEO role after his successor had difficulty maintaining the main brand’s appeal to young people. Our continued perspective is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to board leadership and that careful analysis and trusted advisors should be leveraged to find the appropriate structure for each organization.

In our opinion, chairmen must meet several criteria to qualify as truly “non-executive” or independent. They must not currently hold an executive role (CEO or other), must not be former executives, and must not be founders or family members of founders. From time to time, companies may characterize these types of chairmen as “non-executive” in the language of their proxy reports or even in the chairman’s title, but our analysis re-characterizes them per the criteria above. The idea of an independent chairman is that he or she can bring an impartial and objective perspective to the board, and our experience finds that founders, family members of founders, and former executives tend not to possess that objectivity. This particular debate on nomenclature is a classic case of saying it doesn’t make it so. Being independent in title is not necessarily a reflection of reality. An analysis of the types of chairmen found in the S&P 500 in 2012 is described in Figure 2.

The trend toward separation of the chairman and CEO has been more pronounced over time within the mid-cap companies in the S&P 400 than it has been in the S&P 500. Separation rates in both groups rose by two points in 2012, to 44% in the S&P 500 and 55% in the S&P 400.

….

Pourquoi nommer un administrateur indépendant comme président du conseil

Plusieurs se questionnent sur les raisons qui expliquent l’importance de choisir un administrateur indépendant comme président du conseil, même dans les entreprises dont le fondateur possède le contrôle.

Le court article de Gerard Buckley paru dans itbusiness le 25 août 2014 montre les avantages réels à se doter d’une gouvernance exemplaire.

Voici, selon l’auteur, neuf points à considérer dans le choix de cette option. Bonne lecture !

1. Increased share price on acquisition
2. Investor due diligence is smoother
3. Greater interest in follow-on investment rounds
4. Increased transparency through supplying shareholder information
5. Increased accountability of management
6. Stronger risk and crisis management policies
7. Stronger customer acquisition process resulted from customers’ appreciation that the company is stronger than its individual executives.
8. Competitors take notice of the seriousness of your company’s approach
9. Creates environment for innovative change

The use of a non-executive chairperson for a private corporation, including early and growth stage companies, allows the company to start acting as if the company is structured for success and is serious about its responsibilities to shareholders, customers, and staff.

9 reasons to name a non-executive chairperson to your board

It is natural for entrepreneurs and founders to want to control the destiny of their company. Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are often cited as examples of why a founder should stay in control.

In this example, Zuckerberg owned less than 30 per cent of Facebook; however, he maintained a controlling vote through multiple voting rights. These voting rights enabled him to singlehandedly buy Instagram for over $1 billion without board approval.

Some entrepreneurial observers may say that this is a good thing. Others who have been schooled in corporate governance would suggest too much power rested in one shareholder’s hands, and one who holds less than 50 per cent of the equity of the company. This example of a lack of corporate governance points a founder in the direction of how a private company and its strategic direction should be directed and controlled, while maintaining the vision the founders had when they formed the company.

When a company accepts equity investment from outside shareholders, the shareholders have an expectation that their rights will be protected by the board of directors. For a growth stage company, these many responsibilities become burdensome. I agree with most founders that their primary responsibility is to drive product development and acquire profitable customers. A founder who is both comfortable with and understands the alignment of the vision and strategic direction should be comfortable handing off some of the leadership responsibilities that guide the company.

Best practices of corporate governance for a public company separate the role of CEO of the company and the chairperson of the board of directors, often referred to as the non-executive chairperson or lead director. Under this structure, the CEO manages the affairs of the company under the direction of the board, and the governance structure or board of directors and its members are managed by the non-executive chairperson. Many founders are concerned with a loss of control in this structure; however, they need not be. With a strong selection process that was developed from a skills matrix, and a desire to have open and regular communication between the two roles, the company should be positioned for success.

….

Les C.A de petites tailles performent mieux !

Selon une étude du The Wall Street Journal publié par Joann S. Lublin, les entreprises qui comptent moins d’administrateurs ont de meilleurs résultats que les entreprises de plus grandes tailles.

Bien qu’il n’y ait pas nécessairement de relation de type cause à effet, il semble assez clair que la tendance est à la diminution de nombre d’administrateurs sur les conseils d’administration des entreprises publiques américaines. Pourquoi en est-il ainsi ?

Il y a de nombreuses raisons dont l’article du WSJ, ci-dessous, traite. Essentiellement, les membres de conseils de petites tailles :

sont plus engagés dans les affaires de l’entité
sont plus portés à aller en profondeur dans l’analyse stratégique
entretiennent des relations plus fréquentes et plus harmonieuses avec la direction
ont plus de possibilités de communiquer entre eux
exercent une surveillance plus étroite des activités de la direction
sont plus décisifs, cohésif et impliqués.

Les entreprises du domaine financier ont traditionnellement des conseils de plus grandes tailles mais, encore là, les plus petits conseils ont de meilleurs résultats.

La réduction de la taille se fait cependant très lentement mais la tendance est résolument à la baisse. Il ne faut cependant pas compter sur la haute direction pour insister sur la diminution de la taille des C.A. car il semblerait que plusieurs PCD s’accommodent très bien d’un C.A. plus imposant !

Il faut cependant réaliser que la réduction du nombre d’administrateurs peut constituer un obstacle à la diversité si l’on ne prend pas en compte cette importante variable. Également, il faut noter que le C.A. doit avoir un président du conseil expérimenté, possédant un fort leadership. Un conseil de petite taille, présidé par une personne inepte, aura des résultats à l’avenant !

Voici deux autres documents, partagés par Richard Leblanc sur son groupe de discussion LinkedIn Boards and Advisors, qui pourraient vous intéresser :

« Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors« : http://people.stern.nyu.edu/eofek/PhD/papers/Y_Higher_JFE.pdf

« Larger Board Size and Decreasing Firm Value in Small Firms« : http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1403&context=facpub

Je vous convie donc à la lecture de l’article du WSJ dont voici un extrait de l’article. Bonne lecture !

Smaller Boards Get Bigger Returns

Size counts, especially for boards of the biggest U.S. businesses.

Companies with fewer board members reap considerably greater rewards for their investors, according to a new study by governance researchers GMI Ratings prepared for The Wall Street Journal. Small boards at major corporations foster deeper debates and more nimble decision-making, directors, recruiters and researchers said. Take Apple Inc. In the spring when BlackRock founding partner Sue Wagner was up for a seat on the board of the technology giant, she met nearly every director within just a few weeks. Such screening processes typically take months.

But Apple directors move fast because there only are eight of them. After her speedy vetting, Ms. Wagner joined Apple’s board in July. She couldn’t be reached for comment.

Smaller boards at major corporations have more nimble decision-making processes, directors, recruiters and academic researchers say. Eric Palma

Among companies with a market capitalization of at least $10 billion, typically those with the smallest boards produced substantially better shareholder returns over a three-year period between the spring of 2011 and 2014 when compared with companies with the biggest boards, the GMI analysis of nearly 400 companies showed.

Companies with small boards outperformed their peers by 8.5 percentage points, while those with large boards underperformed peers by 10.85 percentage points. The smallest board averaged 9.5 members, compared with 14 for the biggest. The average size was 11.2 directors for all companies studied, GMI said.

« There’s more effective oversight of management with a smaller board, » said Jay Millen, head of the board and CEO practice for recruiters DHR International. « There’s no room for dead wood. »

Many companies are thinning their board ranks to improve effectiveness, Mr. Millen said. He recently helped a consumer-products business shrink its 10-person board to seven, while bringing on more directors with emerging-markets expertise.

GMI’s results, replicated across 10 industry sectors such as energy, retail, financial services and health care, could have significant implications for corporate governance.

Small boards are more likely to dismiss CEOs for poor performance—a threat that declines significantly as boards grow in numbers, said David Yermack, a finance professor at New York University’s business school who has studied the issue.

It’s tough to pinpoint precisely why board size affects corporate performance, but smaller boards at large-cap companies like Apple and Netflix Inc. appear to be decisive, cohesive and hands-on. Such boards typically have informal meetings and few committees. Apple directors, known for their loyalty to founder Steve Jobs, have forged close ties with CEO Tim Cook, according to a person familiar with the company. Mr. Cook frequently confers with individual directors between board meetings « to weigh the pros and cons of an issue, » an outreach effort that occurs quickly thanks to the board’s slim size, this person said.

Mr. Cook took this approach while mulling whether to recruit Angela Ahrendts, then CEO of luxury-goods company Burberry Group PLC for Apple’s long vacant position of retail chief. Private chats with board members helped him « test the thought » of recruiting her, the person said. She started in April.

Ms. Wagner, Apple’s newest director, replaced a retiring one. The board wants no more than 10 members to keep its flexibility intact, according to the person familiar with the company, adding that even « eye contact and candor change » with more than 10 directors.

Apple returns outperformed technology sector peers by about 37 cumulative percentage points during the three years tracked by GMI. An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.

Netflix, with seven directors, demonstrated equally strong returns, outperforming sector peers by about 32 percentage points. Board members of the big video-streaming service debate extensively before approving important management moves, said Jay Hoag, its lead independent director.

« We get in-depth, » he said. « That’s easier with a small group. »

Netflix directors spent about nine months discussing a proposed price increase, with some pushing back hard on executives about the need for an increase, Mr. Hoag said. Netflix increased prices this spring for new U.S. customers of the company’s streaming video plan, its first price bump since 2011.

A board twice as big wouldn’t have time for « diving deeper into the business on things that matter, » Mr. Hoag said.

….

One-tier board system	Two-tier board system
Organisation
A single board.	A supervisory body and a management body.
Composition
Mixed, executive and non-executive directors may serve on the board.	Separate, executive and non-executive directors serve on separate boards (i.e., a supervisory board composed exclusively of non-executive directors and a management board composed exclusively of executive directors).
Organisation
Unitary	Binary
Committees
Mandatory or recommended Supervisory and advisory committees(Mandatory) oversight and advisory committees such as the audit committee, the remuneration committee and the nomination (appointments) committee, composed of a majority of non-executive directors, one or more of whom must be independent.Supervisory committee Optional committee entrusted with supervising the company, composed of both executive and non-executive directors. Usually differs slightly from a true supervisory board (as found in the two-tier system) in terms of powers, composition and role. Mostly found in countries which present characteristics of a one-tier system while incorporating certain features of a two-tier system.	OptionalHistorically not required but oversight and advisory committees are increasingly important in the two-tier system as well.
Roles
Board of directors Managerial roleDirection and executive actsDecision-taking, management and oversightPerformance enhancement Supervisory role Accountability Strategic and financial oversight	Management board Managerial roleDirection and executive actsDecision-taking and managementPerformance enhancement Service and strategic role Supervisory board Supervisory role Accountability Decision-taking and oversight Monitoring role Strategic and financial oversight
CEO duality
Allowed.The same person can serve as both CEO and chair of the board of directors (although this is generally not recommended by corporate governance practices).	Restricted.No CEO duality (although the CEO can sometimes be a member or attend meetings of the supervisory board.)
Executive directors
Appointed by the general meeting of shareholders, based on a proposal by the board or appointments committee (if any).A director may be appointed by the board of directors when the term of office of another director comes to an end, in order to prevent the board from being paralyzed, for example if the board no longer has a sufficient number of members as required by law or the articles (co-optation procedure).The appointment of a co-opted director must be confirmed at the first general meeting of shareholders following his or her appointment.	Appointed by the supervisory board or the general meeting of shareholders, based on a proposal by the board or the appointments committee (if there is one).
Non-Executive (supervisory directors)
Idem.	Appointed by the general meeting of shareholders or, based on a proposal by the supervisory board or the appointments committee (if there is one).
Conflicts perspective
Negatively associated with the separation of decision-management and decision-oversight roles due to its composition (a majority of executive directors) and unitary structure.Diffusion of tasks and responsibilities weakens the non-executive directors’ ability to oversee the implementation of decisions, especially where executive and non-executive directors face the same potential legal liability.Higher risk of conflicts of interest between management and shareholders. To avoid conflicts of interest, it is often recommended that the one-tier board be composed of a majority of non-executive directors, due to (i) their experience and knowledge, (ii) their contacts, which may enhance management’s ability to secure external resources, and (iii) their independence from the CEO. In companies which have achieved a certain level of development, risks of conflicts of interest are often reduced through the creation of committees allowing these functions to be segregated. In addition, legal provisions aimed at preventing and resolving conflict of interest exist in most jurisdictions.	Positively associated with the separation of decision-management and decision-oversight roles, due to the composition of the supervisory board (independent directors) which ensures independence and its binary structure.No diffusion of tasks and responsibilities. Lower risk of conflicts of interest between management and shareholders.
(Dis)advantages
AdvantagesSpirit of partnership and mutual respect between directors, which allows greater interaction amongst all board members.Non-executive directors have more contact with the company itself and are more involved in the decision-making process. Non-executive directors have direct access to information. Decision-making process is faster. A lighter administrative burden as only a single management body needs to hold meetings and only a single set of minutes need be drawn up. Board meetings take place more regularly. Disadvantages A single body is entrusted with both managing and supervising the company’s operations. More difficult to guarantee the independence of board members and there is a greater risk of non-executive directors aligning too much with executive directors. More liability for non-executive directors.	Advantages Clear distinction between the supervisory and management functions within the company.Clear distinctions of liabilities between the members of the supervisory and management bodies.Supervisory board members are more independent. Clear separation of the roles of chairman and CEO. Disadvantages It is more difficult for directors to build relationships of trust, thereby potentially undermining communication between the two boards. Supervisory board members only receive limited information (from the management board) and at a later stage (decreased involvement). There is a heightened risk of the supervisory board not discovering shortcomings or discovering them too late. Decision-making process is delayed due to less frequent supervisory board meetings. Non-executive directors face several challenges which appear to be typical of the two-tier board model, such as difficulties (i) building relationships of trust, thereby potentially undermining communication and flows of information between the two boards, and (ii) fully understanding and ratifying strategic initiatives by the management board, thereby frustrating the decision-making processes.

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post

Partagez (share) ce post