Participation des salariés au conseil d’administration : un pas vers la cogestion ?


On le sait, la participation des salariés à la gouvernance des entreprises françaises est beaucoup plus répandue que dans l’environnement nord-américain. Cet article de Caroline Froger-Michon, publié dans Les échos | Business, fait le point sur la situation, en considérant surtout le point de vue légal.

Bonne lecture. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus !

Des salariés au conseil d’administration : un pas vers la cogestion ?

La loi de sécurisation de l’emploi du 14 juin 2013 marque une nouvelle étape dans la gouvernance des grandes entreprises : celle-ci impose désormais aux sociétés anonymes (SA) et sociétés en commandites par actions (SCA) dépassant certains seuils d’effectifs d’avoir des représentants des salariés au sein de leur conseil d’administration ou de surveillance.

Caroline Froger-Michon, avocat, département social, CMS Bureau Francis Lefebvre.

Plusieurs dispositifs permettaient déjà aux salariés de participer aux organes de direction (en application des statuts dans les SA, en tant que représentants des salariés actionnaires, ou en tant que représentants du comité d’entreprise). Le dispositif mis en place par la loi de sécurisation de l’emploi vient s’ajouter aux dispositifs existants et présente un caractère obligatoire.

Ainsi, désormais, les sociétés qui emploient, à la clôture de deux exercices consécutifs, au moins 5 000 salariés permanents en ce compris ceux de leurs filiales, directes ou indirectes, dont le siège social est fixé sur le territoire français, ou au moins 10 000 salariés permanents dans le monde, et qui ont pour obligation de mettre en place un comité d’entreprise, doivent prévoir dans leurs statuts que le conseil d’administration comprend des administrateurs représentant les salariés.

Toutefois, sont dispensées de cette obligation, les sociétés filiales directes ou indirectes d’une société déjà soumise à cette obligation. Au moins un représentant des salariés, doté d’une voix délibérative, doit être nommé dans les sociétés dont le nombre d’administrateurs est inférieur ou égal à douze. Les sociétés comptant plus de douze administrateurs sont, quant à elles, dans l’obligation de désigner deux représentants des salariés. Ces représentants ne sont pas pris en compte pour la détermination des nombres minimum et maximum d’administrateurs prévus par le Code de Commerce.

4 modes de désignation des représentants des salariés

C’est à l’assemblée générale que revient l’initiative d’organiser cette représentation. Elle doit le faire dans les 6 mois suivant la clôture des 2 exercices provoquant l’obligation, après avis des représentants du personnel.

Dans ce délai, l’assemblée doit modifier les statuts pour déterminer les conditions de désignation. A cet égard, la loi laisse 4 options à l’assemblée :

  1. élection par les salariés de la société et de ses filiales ayant leur siège social sur le territoire français,
  2. désignation par les institutions représentatives du personnel (comité de groupe, comité central d’entreprise ou comité d’entreprise),
  3. désignation par l’organisation syndicale la plus représentative de l’entreprise,
  4. ou, lorsqu’au moins 2 administrateurs sont à désigner, par l’une des 3 modalités précitées pour l’un et par le comité d’entreprise européen pour l’autre.

Les entreprises qui remplissent d’ores et déjà la condition d’effectif posée par la loi doivent effectuer cette modification avant le 31 décembre 2014.

Renforcement des règles de gouvernance | Une proposition de Richard Leblanc


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un billet publié par Richard Leblanc* sur son blogue Governance Gateway. Il s’agit d’une proposition de changement à trois niveaux :

(1) Renforcement du rôle du C.A. en matière de création de valeur;

(2) Imputabilité de la direction envers le C.A.;

(3) Imputabilité du C.A. envers les actionnaires.

L’auteur nous demande de faire des suggestions dans le but de peaufiner un cas qu’il est en voie de réaliser. Des suggestions concernant cette liste ?

Proposals to Strengthen a Board’s Role in Value Creation, Management Accountability to the Board, and Board Accountability to Shareholders

I.    Increase Board Engagement, Expertise and Incentives to Focus on Value Creation

Reduce the size of the Board.

Increase the frequency of Board meetings.

Limit Director overboardedness.

Limit Chair of the Board overboardedness.

Increase Director work time.

Increase the Board Chair’s role in the value creation process.

Statue of John Harvard, founder of Harvard Uni...
Statue of John Harvard, founder of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the college yard. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Focus the majority of Board time on value creation and company performance.

Increase Director roles and responsibilities relative to value creation.

Increase Director compensation, and match incentive compensation to long-term value creation and individual performance.

Enable Director access to information and reporting Management.

Enable Director and Board access to expertise to inform value creation as needed.

Require active investing in the Company by Directors.

Select Directors who can contribute directly to value creation.

Revise the Board’s committee structure to address value creation.

Hold Management to account.

Disclose individual Director areas of expertise directly related to value creation.

Increase Board engagement focused on value creation.

Establish and fund an independent Office of the Chairman.

Limit Board homogeneity and groupthink.

II.   Increase Director Independence from Management and Management Accountability to the Board

Increase objective Director and advisory independence.

Limit Director interlocks.

Limit over-tenured Directors.

Limit potential Management capture and social relatedness of Directors.

Decrease undue Management influence on Director selection.

Decrease undue Management influence on Board Chair selection.

Increase objective independence of governance assurance providers.

Limit management control of board protocols.

Address fully perceived conflicts of interest.

Establish independent oversight functions reporting directly to Committees of the Board to support compliance oversight.

Match Management compensation with longer-term value creation, corporate performance and risk management.

III.   Increase Director Accountability to Shareholders

The Board Chair and Committee Chairs shall communicate face-to-face and visit regularly with major Shareholders.

Communicate the value creation plan to Shareholders.

Implement integrated, longer-term reporting focused on sustained value creation that includes non-financial performance and investment.

Implement independent and transparent Director performance reviews with Shareholder input linked to re-nomination.

Each Director, each year, shall receive a majority of Shareholder votes cast to continue serving as a Director.

Make it easier for Shareholders to propose and replace Directors.

Limit any undue Management influence on Board – Shareholder communication.

Limit Shareholder barriers to the governance process that can be reasonably seen to promote Board or Management entrenchment.

__________________________________

* Richard W. Leblanc, Associate Professor, Law, Governance & Ethics, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies, of the Bar of Ontario; Summer Faculty 2013 (MGMT S-5018 Corporate Governance) at Harvard University; Faculty at the Directors College; and Research Fellow and Advisory Board Member, Institute for Excellence in Corporate Governance, University of Texas at Dallas, Naveen Jindal School of Management.

Quelle est la place des employés dans la gouvernance à l’américaine ?


Voici un bref compte rendu, paru dans le Financial Times, dans le cadre la série « Better Boards » qui discute de l’urgence de donner une place aux employés dans la gouvernance des entreprises. On sait que les employés siègent sur les conseils d’administration de plusieurs entreprises européennes. Pourquoi cet aspect de la gouvernance est-il occulté aux É.U. et au Canada ? Quelle est votre idée à ce sujet ?

L’article du FT aborde aussi d’autres sujets sur la composition des C.A. Vos commentaires sont appréciés.

Better Boards: is there a role for employees ?

Board Intelligence, a specialist in board information, is holding a  series of debates called “The Board is Dead; Long Live the Board”. Peter Whitehead reports on the most notable findings, as part of Executive  Appointments’ “Better Boards” series. Participants in the fifth  think-tank debate discussed the role of employees in corporate governance. They  said that those with the biggest stake in the long-term success of a business  should have the balance of power – and that, arguably, this is the employees.

World business  finance and political news fro...
World business finance and political news from the Financial Times– FT.com Europe (Photo credit: catorze14)

“Much of our system of corporate governance is intent on protecting and  empowering the investor. But investors in large listed stocks have access to a  liquid market and can usually exit should they wish to. By contrast, most  employees are at the mercy of a relatively illiquid employment market and so  surely have more skin in the game,” they said.

But concerns were also raised that both employees and shareholders can have vested interests that might not always be in the long-term interest of the  company, whereas independent non-executive directors should not be driven by  self-interest.

Les aspects éthiques de la gouvernance d’entreprise | Un rapport qui prend en compte la réalité européenne (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Corporate governance in multicultural organization (leadershipbyvirtue.blogspot.com)

Is Your Board Governing Itself Effectively? (blogs.law.harvard.edu)

Board Evaluation – A Window into the Boardroom (blogs.law.harvard.edu)

Les billets en gouvernance les plus consultés en juin 2013


Voici un relevé des billets les plus lus ce mois-ci sur mon site. Quel est votre choix ?

P1020141

Quelles sont les questions à poser avant de joindre un CA ?
Les comportements “court-termistes” sont les ennemis de la création de valeur !
Les critères d’évaluation du rôle d’administrateur de sociétés
Les administrateurs et les technologies de l’information | Questions capitales
Conjuguer les intérêts des parties prenantes avec la performance globale de l’entreprise | la vision française
Enquête de Aon sur la gestion globale des risques en 2013
Un modèle d’affaires pertinent pour actualiser les principes du développement durable
Dix Leçons tirées d’une multitude d’entrevues avec des PCD de PME
Guides de gouvernance à l’intention des OBNL : Questions et réponses
L’état de la situation de l’Audit interne en 2013
Une formation en gouvernance pour les nouveaux administrateurs | Un prérequis ?
On vous offre de siéger sur un C.A.  |  Posez les bonnes questions avant d’accepter !

Dix leçons tirées d’une multitude d’entrevues avec des PCD de PME


Quelles leçons peut-on tirer des entrevues avec les PCD (CEO) d’entreprises de petites capitalisations. C’est ce que nous présente Adam J. Epstein*, un spécialiste de « hedge fund » qui investit des centaines de millions de dollars dans les petites entreprises. L’article a été publié dans mc2MicroCap par Ian Cassel.

J’ai trouvé les conseils très pertinents pour les personnes intéressées à connaître la réalité des évaluations d’entreprises par des investisseurs privés. Qu’en pensez-vous ?

10 Lessons Learned from Interviewing Hundreds of MicroCap CEOs

1)    Preparation – there is no reason to waste your time and someone else’s by sitting down with a CEO to discuss their company without preparing – really preparing.  To me, “really preparing” doesn’t mean looking at Yahoo Finance for a few minutes in the taxi on the way to the meeting, or flipping through the company’s PowerPoint on your phone.  That kind of preparation is akin to walking up a few flights of stairs with some grocery bags to get ready for climbing Mt. Rainier.  To be really prepared for a first meeting means reading/skimming the most recent 10K, the most recent 10Q, the most recent proxy filing, the management presentation, any previous management presentations (more on this later), a recent sell-side company or industry report, and an Internet search of the management team’s backgrounds (with particular emphasis on any prior SEC, NASD, or other state/federal legal problems).  It’s hard to overemphasize how many would-be micro-cap investing disasters can be headed off at the pass by reading what’s said, and not said, and then having the opportunity to ask the CEO directly about what you’ve found.

Stream Near Mt Rainier

2)    Non-Starters – for better or worse, the micro-cap world is home to some “colorful” management teams.  After all of the time served in this regard, absolutely nothing surprises me anymore.  I have found CEOs who were simultaneously running 3 companies, CEOs who were banned from running a public company by the SEC, management presentations that were largely plagiarized, CEOs who shouted profanities in response to basic questions about their “skin in the game,” and CEOs who not only didn’t understand Reg. FD, but clearly didn’t even know it existed.  When in doubt, it’s much better not to invest at all than to make a bad investment; fortunately there are always thousands of other companies to consider.

3)    Company .PPT – these presentations speak volumes about what kind of company you are dealing with if you’re paying attention: a) my colleagues and I came up with a golden rule during my institutional investing tenure, namely that the length of a .ppt presentation is, more often than not, inversely proportional to the quality of the micro-cap company being presented (i.e., any micro-cap company that can’t be adequately presented in less than 20 slides is a problem, and 15 is even better); b) if the slides are too complex to understand on a standalone basis then either the company has a problem or you’re about to invest in something you don’t sufficiently understand – neither is good; c) NEO bios, market information, service/product/IP, strategy, financials, and use of proceeds should all receive equal billing (when buying a house, would you go and visit a house with an online profile that only features pictures of the front yard and the garage?); d) .ppt formatting and spelling/syntax problems are akin to showing up at an important job interview with giant pieces of spinach in your teeth; e) when reviewing use of proceeds (for a prospective financing) or milestones, look up prior investor presentations to see how well they did with prior promises – history often repeats itself; f) treat forward looking projections for what they typically are – fanciful at best, and violations of Reg. FD at worst; and g) micro-cap companies that flaunt celebrities as directors, partners, or investors should be approached cautiously.

4)    NEO Bios – as Ian Cassel often points out quite rightly in my opinion, micro-cap investing is an exercise in wagering on jockeys more than horses.  One of the principal ways prospective investors have to assess jockeys is the manner in which professional backgrounds are set forth; i.e., management bios.  Like a company .ppt, bios of named executive officers speak volumes about the people being described. Here are some things to look out for: a) bios that don’t contain specific company names (at least for a 10 year historic period) typically don’t for a reason, and it’s unlikely to be positive (e.g., “Mr. Smith has held senior management roles with several large technology companies”); b) it’s a good idea to compare SEC bios with bios you might find for the same people on other websites (remember the “three company CEO” referred to earlier?); c) bios that don’t contain any educational references or only highlight executive programs at Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, etc.; d) company websites that don’t have any management/director bios (surprising how many there are); and e) CEOs and CFOs who have never held those jobs before in a public company (to be clear, lots of micro-cap NEOs are “first-timers,” but it’s something you should at least factor into the risk profile of the investment).

5)    Management Conduct – just as management bios speak volumes, so does their conduct at in person one-on-one meetings.  More specifically: a) organized, professional corporate leaders rarely look disheveled or have bad hygiene; b) service providers chosen by companies also represent the company, so the previous observation applies to bankers/lawyers as well; c) CEOs who are overly chatty about non-business issues might not be keen to talk about their companies; d) if a CEO seems glued to their .ppt presentation (i.e., essentially just reading you the slides), tell them to close their laptops and just talk about the company with no visual aids – you will learn an awful lot about them in the ensuing 5 minutes; e) be on the lookout for NEOs or service providers cutting each other off, disagreeing with each other, or talking over one another;  f) when asking questions of the CEO or CFO watch their body language – moving around in their seats, running hands through their hair, perspiration, and less eye contact are nonverbal signs of duress (it’s one of the reasons why in-person meetings with management are always preferable to phone calls); g) if there are more than one NEOs in attendance, are they listening to each other (it’s rarely a great sign when other execs are looking at their phones during meetings); h) is the CEO providing careful, thoughtful answers or are they shooting from the hip – loose lips virtually always sink ships; i) did the CEO answer any questions with “I don’t know” – even great CEOs can’t possibly know the answer to every question about their companies; and j) something partially tongue-in-cheek just to think about – we know from everyday life that when someone starts a sentence with “with all due respect” what inevitably  follows is, well, something disrespectful, and when a CEO repeatedly says “to be honest” what inevitably follows is….

6)    Service Providers – micro-cap service providers (bankers, lawyers, auditors, IR firms, etc.) can run the gamut from highly professional to so bad that they can actually jeopardize companies with their advice.  While it certainly can take a while to learn “the good, the bad, and the ugly” in the micro-cap ecosystem, you can learn a lot about the CEO by asking him/her to take a few minutes to explain why the company’s service providers are the best choices for the shareholders.  It perhaps goes without saying that if a CEO can’t speak artfully, and convincingly in this regard, then buyer beware.

7)    Corporate Governance – spans the full continuum in micro-cap companies from top-notch to nothing more than a mirage.  One way to quickly ferret out which flavor of governance you’re dealing with is to ask a CEO to succinctly set forth the company’s strategy (i.e., goals, risks, opportunities, customers, etc.), and subsequently ask the CEO to describe how each seated director assists with the fundamental elements of achieving that strategy.  Though oversimplified, material disconnects in this regard are very likely to illustrate some governance challenges.  Also, ask the CEO how each of the directors came to the company; if all of the directors were brought to the company by the CEO, it’s fair to ask the CEO how confident an investor should be that the board is suitably independent to monitor the CEOs performance (one of the principal roles of all boards).

8)    Public Company IQ – easily one of the biggest problems with investing in the micro-cap arena is the conspicuous lack of (relevant, successful) capital markets and corporate finance experience in boardrooms and C-suites.  As alluded to earlier, it’s a fact of life that a large percentage of micro-cap officers and directors lack appreciable tenures in shepherding small public companies (to be clear, this doesn’t mean they aren’t smart, successful, and sophisticated, it just means they haven’t had lots of experience in small public companies).  Unlike larger public companies, small public companies can execute relatively well, and still toil in obscurity creating little or no value for shareholders.   It’s a good idea to evaluate the same when meeting with management, because companies with low “public company IQs” are more likely to underperform all else being equal.  Be on the lookout for CEOs who: a) can’t articulate a sensible strategy for maintaining or increasing trading volume; b) seem to regularly undertake financings that are more dilutive than similarly situated peer companies; c) frequently authorize the issuance of press releases that don’t appear to contain material information; d) blame some or all of their capital markets challenges on short-seller/market-making conspiracy theories; and e) can’t name the company’s largest 5 shareholders, their approximate holdings, and the last time he/she spoke to each.

9)    Follow-Up – CEOs who promise to follow-up after meetings with clarified answers, customer references, or more information but don’t are tacitly underscoring for you that they are either disorganized, disingenuous, don’t care about investors or all three.  The opposite is also not good; for example, if the company’s internal or external IR professionals subsequently convey information that seems inappropriate (from a Reg. FD standpoint) – it probably is.

10) Cautionary Note – Bernard Madoff undoubtedly would have passed these tests and a lot more with flying colors.  Sometimes the “bad guys” are really smart and charming and you’re going to either lose most of your money or get defrauded, or both. It’s happened to me, and it’s maddening and humbling at the same time.  Hence, the apt phrase: high risk, high return.

It’s easy, in my experience anyway, to get so skeptical about micro-cap companies that it can be paralyzing.  But, just when you’re about to throw in the towel, along comes a compelling growth prospect run by management with as much integrity and skill as the day is long, and it serves as a poignant reminder of everything that’s great about investing in small public companies.

Like most “best-of” lists, this isn’t intended to be exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination.  In addition to making money and promoting US jobs/innovation, one of the best parts of investing in small public companies in my opinion is continuing to hone the craft, and learn from other investors and their experiences.  Accordingly, add/subtract per your own experiences, and happy hunting.

_________________________________________

*Adam J. Epstein advises small-cap boards through his firm, Third Creek Advisors, LLC, is a National Association of Corporate Directors Board Leadership Fellow, and the author of The Perfect Corporate Board: A Handbook for Mastering the Unique Challenges of Small-Cap Companies, (McGraw Hill, 2012).  He was co-founder and principal of Enable Capital Management, LLC.

Even micro-cap companies not immune to proxy battles (business.financialpost.com)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Les aspects éthiques de la gouvernance d’entreprise | Un rapport qui prend en compte la réalité européenne


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, en primeur, un rapport exceptionnel rédigé par Julia Casson pour le compte de IBE (Institute of Business Ethics) et de EcoDa (European Confederation of Director’s Associations) qui porte sur l’éthique et la gouvernance européenne et qui sera présenté à Londres le 2 juillet. À cette occasion l’auteure présentera les grandes lignes du rapport ci-joint et discutera des questions suivantes :

  1. Why ethics has been left out of the debate around CG in the last ten years ?
  2. Is Corporate Governance guidance working/adequate ?
  3. What should be done about it ?
  4. What are boards doing in practice ?
  5. What is the role of Directors in promoting an ethical dynamics in the companies ?

Je vous invite à prendre connaissance de ce document afin de mieux appréhender les préoccupations des conseils d’administration en matière de gouvernance.

Un document vraiment précieux pour étudier toutes les facettes de l’éthique !

A review of Ethical Aspects of Corporate Governance Regulation and Guidance in the EU

IBE is holding a launch of it’s latest publication A Review of the Ethical Aspects of Corporate Governance Regulation and Guidance in the EU by Julia Casson, Director of Board Insight Limited.  This IBE Occasional Paper is published in association with the European Confederation of Directors’ Associations (ecoDa).

Institute of Business Ethics
Institute of Business Ethics (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The purpose of governance includes encouraging robust decision making and proper risk management, and to account to those that provide capital as well as other stakeholders.  To support business sustainability, explicit attention to the ethical dimensions of these goals might be considered as requisite in any corporate governance guidance and regulation.

This new report suggests, however, a general lack of ethical language in corporate governance provisions at the pan-EU level in spite of an approach which is soft law and principles based and the fact that boards are expected (though not required) to set the values which will guide their company’s operations.

The event will begin with the author reflecting on the report’s findings. This will be followed by a panel discussion around:

Would it be correct to say that ethical drivers have been largely missing from the debate around corporate governance in the last ten years? • Is corporate governance guidance working? • What are boards doing in practice to promote an ethical dynamic in companies?

Panel members include: Julia Casson; Pedro Montoya, Group Chief Compliance Officer, EADS, sponsors of the report; and Paul Moxey, Head of Corporate Governance, ACCA.

Business Ethics- What is it? (corporatetips.wordpress.com)

Board Evaluation – A Window into the Boardroom (blogs.law.harvard.edu)

Corporate governance in multicultural organization (leadershipbyvirtue.blogspot.com)

Les dix billets les plus populaires la semaine du 16 juin 2013 – Quel est votre choix ?


Voici un relevé des dix billets les plus populaires sur mon site cette semaine . Quel est votre choix ?

English: Port aux Choix lighthouse, Newfoundla...
English: Port aux Choix lighthouse, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada Français : Phare de Port au Choix, Terre-Neuve at Labrador, Canada (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Quelles sont les questions à poser avant de joindre un CA ?
Les comportements “court-termistes” sont les ennemis de la création de valeur !
Les administrateurs et les technologies de l’information | Questions capitales
Conjuguer les intérêts des parties prenantes avec la performance globale de l’entreprise | la vision française
L’urgence est un choix | Le propos de René Villemure
Une méthodologie de l’évaluation de la gouvernance des sociétés | ASEAN Corporate Governance Scorecard
Guides de gouvernance à l’intention des OBNL : Questions et réponses
On vous offre de siéger sur un C.A.  |  Posez les bonnes questions avant d’accepter !
L’état de la situation de l’Audit interne en 2013
Pourquoi séparer les fonctions de président du conseil (PCA) et de président et chef de la direction (PDG) ?

Grands défis de gouvernance pour les entreprises cotées en 2013 | Un recueil de la NACD


Vous trouverez, ci-joint, une publication de la NACD qui présente les grands défis qui attendent les administrateurs de sociétés au cours des prochaines années. Ce document est un recueil de lectures publié par les partenaires de la NACD : Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc., KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute, Marsh & McLennan Companies, NASDAQ OMX, Pearl Meyer & Partners et Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.

Vous y trouverez un ensemble d’articles très pertinents sur les sujets de l’heure en gouvernance. Chaque année, la NACD se livre à cet exercice et publie un document très prisé !

Voici comment les auteurs se sont répartis les thèmes les plus « hot » en gouvernance.

English: 1166 Avenue of the Americas (Marsh & ...
English: 1166 Avenue of the Americas (Marsh & McLennan Headquarters) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
    1. What to Do When an Activist Investor Comes Calling par Heidrick & Struggle
    2. KPMG’s Audit Committee Priorities for 2013 par KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute
    3. Board Risk Checkup—Are You Ready for the Challenges Ahead ? par Marsh & McLennan Companies
    4. Boardroom Discussions par NASDAQ OMX
    5. Paying Executives for Driving Long-Term Success par Pearl Meyer & Partners
    6. What Boards Should Focus on in 2013 par Weil, Gotshal and Manges, LLP

NACD Insights and Analysis – Governance Challenges: 2013 and Beyond

Today, directors are operating in a new environment. Shareholders, regulators, and stakeholders have greater influence on the boardroom than ever before. In addition, risks and crisis situations are occurring with greater frequency and amplitude. Directors have a responsibility to ensure their companies are prepared for these challenges—present and future.This compendium provides insights and practical guidance from the nation’s leading boardroom experts—the National Association of Corporate Directors’ (NACD’s) strategic content partners—each recognized as a thought leader in their respective fields of corporate governance.

Article relié :

NACD BoardVision: Private Equity’s Influence on Executive Compensation (bulletproofblog.com)

Les comportements « court-termistes » sont les ennemis de la création de valeur !


Êtes-vous intéressés à comprendre les comportements à court terme adoptés par les organisations en réponse aux nombreuses occasions qu’ont les gens de profiter de situations non-éthiques, à l’encontre de la création de valeur à long terme ?

Si vous vous demandez quels sont les facteurs-clés qui conduisent aux abus reliés à des comportements de court terme et, surtout, si vous voulez connaître les moyens susceptibles d’améliorer la situation, l’article de Malcolm Salter, professeur à la Harvard Business School, vous fascinera.

Vous pouvez lire le résumé qui suit. Si votre curiosité l’emporte, vous pouvez télécharger le document au complet.

Short-Termism at Its Worst

Researchers and business leaders have long decried short-termism: the excessive focus of executives of publicly traded companies—along with fund managers and other investors—on short-term results. The central concern is that short-termism discourages long-term investments, threatening the performance of both individual firms and the U.S. economy.

English: Detail from Corrupt Legislation. Mura...
English: Detail from Corrupt Legislation. Mural by Elihu Vedder. Lobby to Main Reading Room, Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C. Main figure is seated atop a pedestal saying « CORRUPT LEGISLATION ». Artist’s signature is dated 1896. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the paper, How Short-Termism Invites Corruption…and What To Do About It, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, I argue that short-termism also invites institutional corruption—that is, institutionally supported behavior that, while not necessarily unlawful, erodes public trust and undermines a company’s legitimate processes, core values, and capacity to achieve espoused goals. Institutional corruption in business typically entails gaming society’s laws and regulations, tolerating conflicts of interest, and persistently violating accepted norms of fairness, among other things.

My argument starts by describing the twin problems of short-termism and institutional corruption and showing how the latter has led to a diminution of public trust in many of our leading firms and industries. Focusing most specifically on the pervasive gaming of society’s rules (with examples drawn from the finance industry, among others), I then explain how short-termism invites gaming and identify the principal sources of short-termism in today’s economy. The most significant sources of short-termism that collectively invite institutional corruption include: shifting beliefs about the purposes and responsibilities of the modern corporation; the concomitant rise of a new financial culture; misapplied performance metrics; perverse incentives; our vulnerability to hard-wired behavioral biases; the decreasing tenure of institutional leaders; and the bounded knowledge of corporate directors, which prevents effective board oversight.

I next turn to the question of what is to be done about short-termism and the institutional corruption it invites. In this final section of the paper, I discuss reforms and recommendations related to the improvement of board oversight; the adoption of compensation principles and practices that can help mitigate the destructive effects of inappropriate metrics, perverse incentives, and hard-wired preferences for immediate satisfactions; the termination of quarterly earnings guidance; and the elimination of the built-in, short-term bias embedded in our current capital gains tax regime.

The full paper is available for download here.

Short-Termism (projecteve.com)

In defence of short-termism (stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com)

The Reality of Short Termism Per Mark Roe (concurringopinions.com)

Leçons à tirer sur la séparation des rôles de PCD et de PCA | L’exemple de JPMorgan


Aujourd’hui, je vous propose la lecture de l’excellent article d’Ira Millstein* de la firme Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, paru dans Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, sur la saga JPMorgan Chase qui a alimenté les discussions en gouvernance au cours des derniers mois. Maintenant que la poussière sur l’échec de la séparation des rôles de PCD et PCA et sur l’opportunité d’utiliser un « administrateur principal » (Lead Directeur) est tombée, il y a certainement lieu d’en tirer des leçons très pertinentes pour le futur. C’est ce que fait admirablement bien l’auteure en précisant les différences fondamentales entre les rôles.

Governance Lessons from the Dimon Dust-Up

Dans le cas de JPMorgan Chase, la bataille de M. Dimon pour conserver ses fonctions de CEO et de Chairman a été féroce. Celui-ci a gagné son pari parce que les circonstances lui étaient favorables (le timing était bon). Selon l’auteure, il aurait été préférable de faire voter les actionnaires sur la séparation des rôles, pour le prochain CEO. L’article montre (1) qu’il est préférable d’avoir une séparation des rôles, (2) que la nomination d’un administrateur principal n’est pas la solution miracle parce que celui-ci n’aura jamais tout le pouvoir et toute la légitimité d’un président du conseil indépendant et (3) que dans les cas où un administrateur principal est requis, il faut définir son rôle en lui donnant le pouvoir et l’autorité nécessaire.

Jamie Dimon,  CEO of JPMorgan Chase
Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase (Photo credit: jurvetson)

Voici un extrait de cet article ainsi qu’un tableau montrant les comparaisons entre deux modèles de gouvernance : le modèle du président de conseil indépendant et le modèle dual « Chair/CEO ».

Substantial work was done on this issue by the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), in its Blue Ribbon Commission Report “The Effective Lead Director.” The role of the lead director as viewed in that report is not as strong a position as the independent chair, as indicated in a comparison chart included as Appendix A (below). In comparing the key duties of a typical independent chair to a lead director, the powers and duties of a lead director fall short in the following areas:

  1. Power to call a board meeting: Unlike the chair, the lead director typically does not have convening power but only suggests to the chair/CEO that a meeting be called.
  2. Control of the board agenda and board information: Unlike the chair who bears responsibility and authority for determining both the board agenda and the information that will be provided, the lead director collaborates with the chair/CEO and other directors on these issues.
  3. Authority to represent the board in shareholder and stakeholder communications: Typically the chair/CEO represents the board with shareholders and external stakeholders; the lead director plays a role only if specifically asked by the chair/CEO or the board directly.

Appendix A Comparison of the Non-Executive Chair and the Chair/CEO Models

Click image to enlarge Click image to enlarge

__________________________________________________________

*Ira Millstein is a senior partner at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and co-chair of the Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership at Columbia Law School.

Making a Case for One Leader at JPMorgan (dealbook.nytimes.com)

JPMorgan Shareholders Reject CEO-Chairman Split in Win for Dimon (bloomberg.com)

JPMorgan shareholders support Dimon’s dual roles in vote – Reuters (reuters.com)

Jamie Dimon needs a boss (blogs.reuters.com)

Jamie Dimon Vote: A New Referendum on Governance (cnbc.com)

Jamie Dimon and Entire JPM Board of Directors Overcome Shareholder Proposals (dailyfinance.com)

Entrevue avec Robert Monks, actionnaire activiste


Je vous invite à visionner la vidéo de ReutersVideo dans laquelle Lucy Marcus discute ouvertement et candidement avec Robert Monks, actionnaire activiste avéré et conseiller en gouvernance de sociétés, à propos des réformes entreprises au Royaume-Uni, en comparaison avec les É.U.

boardroom
boardroom (Photo credit: The_Warfield)

M. Monks donne son avis sur les comportements des administrateurs de demain et montre comment ceux-ci peuvent se préparer et surmonter une  situation de crise.

Vous serez probablement aussi intéressés à plusieurs autres vidéos de la série In the Boardroom présentée sur YouTube. Bon visionnement !

Article d’intérêt :

Men seen as impediments to shaking up boardrooms (business.financialpost.com)

Le ton donné par le sommet de l’organisation (« Tone at the Top »)


Voici un article d’intérêt pour tout administrateur de sociétés qui porte sur un sujet un peu galvaudé : L’importance du ton donné par le sommet de l’organisation (« Tone at the Top »). L’auteur du billet, Jim DeLoach*, tente d’expliquer le véritable sens de cette expression, notamment la prééminence de la cohérence entre ce que la haute direction dit et ce que les employés voient ou perçoivent !

“Tone at the top” is an often-used term to describe how an organization’s leadership creates an environment that fosters ethical and responsible business behavior. While tone at the top is important and a vital foundation, is it enough ? The reality is that when leaders communicate the organization’s vision, mission, core values and commitment to appropriate ethical behavior, what really drives the culture and resonates with the organization’s employees is what they see and hear every day from the managers to whom they report. If the behavior of middle managers contradicts the messaging and values conveyed from the top, it won’t take long for lower-level employees to notice. Because the top-down emphasis on ethical and responsible business behavior in an organization is only as strong as its weakest link, it is vital that the organization’s tone at the top be translated into an effective tone in the middle before it can reach the rest of the organization.

Voici un extrait de l’article.

Focus on the “Tone of the Organization”

Three dynamics drive this collective culture, or the “tone of the organization”:

(1)  Don’t assume that both tone in the middle and tone at the bottom are aligned with the tone at the top. Alignment is the name of the game. The greater the number of layers of management in the organization, the greater the risk of incongruities in the respective tones at the top, middle and bottom, and likewise, the greater the risk of executive management being unaware of serious financial, operational and compliance risks that may be common knowledge to one or more middle managers and rank-and-file employees. Further, information is often distorted as it moves up the management chain, creating disconnected leaders.

(2)  Don’t assume everyone is engaged. The extent of engagement is vital to building a strong, ethical culture. A lack of engagement drives absenteeism, turnover, fraud, misappropriation of assets, safety incidents, quality defects and loss of customer focus.

Organization Triangle
Organization Triangle (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

(3)  Recognize the stakes: Many financial, operational and compliance risks are embedded in the organization’s processes. Many decisions are made and actions are undertaken on the front lines by middle managers and their teams, not by executive management. The decisions to act or not to act present opportunities for excellence as well as the potential to undermine the organization. To the extent these actions result in policy violations and significant omissions, they present risks in a wide variety of areas, such as product or environmental liability, health and safety, trading, employee retention, or security and privacy concerns. Risks can fester and smolder when repeated errors and omissions occur within processes, creating potential for significant surprises later.To address these “tone of the organization” dynamics, executive management and directors should:

Make every effort to implement a strong tone at the top. Without this starting point, it’s game over. Be aware of inappropriate performance pressures, a myopic short-term focus on profitability or a “fear of the boss” within the ranks. In certain areas of the organization, management may look the other way when people act inappropriately, especially when those individuals are valued rainmakers, rather than take fair and appropriate disciplinary action. Issues may exist even when executive management is of the view that a strong tone at the top exists.

Ascertain whether the organizational structure supports or impedes the culture. For example, flattening the organization may reduce the risk of executive management being unaware of risks embedded in the organization. On the other end of the spectrum, compensation arrangements may encourage inappropriate risk-taking behavior, e.g., competing metrics such as cost and schedule trumping safety.

Consider conducting a periodic assessment of the tone in the middle and tone at the bottom. Seek periodic independent assessments of the organization’s culture and tone up and down the organization to affirm the belief system driving behavior. Address any lack of alignment with leadership.

Ensure the organization has effective escalation processes. A survey by the Ethics Resource Center noted the percentage of an organization’s employees who witnessed misconduct at work was 45 percent in 2011, down from 49 percent in 2009. Of those employees, 65 percent reported the misconduct they saw, up from 63 percent in 2009. While the rate of escalation is moving in a positive direction, there is still room for improvement.

Act on the warning signs in audit reports. Internal audit can play a key role in monitoring the tone of the organization, either as part of a comprehensive assessment or through aggregating relevant findings from multiple audits in different areas. Incongruities among the tones at the top, in the middle and at the bottom may warrant internal training initiatives and communications that reaffirms the organization’s core values and beliefs.

________________________________

*Jim DeLoach has more than 35 years of experience and is a member of the Protiviti Solutions Leadership Team. His market focus is on helping organizations succeed in responding to government mandates, shareholder demands and a changing business environment in a cost-effective and sustainable manner that reduces risk to an acceptable level. He also assists companies with integrating risk management with strategy setting and performance management. Jim also serves as a member of Protiviti’s Executive Council to the CEO.

« Values are embedded in the culture and in how we do business » Mr. Pierre Guyot, CEO, John Deere France (councilcommunity.wordpress.com)

Gary Shilling: Those at the Top Set the Tone: Dimon, Cohen, Obama (valuewalk.com)

Le travail des administrateurs en 2013 | Vigilance, mais surtout vision !


Ce billet a été publié par Jennifer Mailander sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum le 29 mai 2013. Je l’ai retenu car il montre éloquemment comment la fonction d’administrateur de sociétés est devenue exigeante au fil des ans.

L’article aborde comment éviter la surcharge d’information souvent vécue par les administrateurs ainsi que la vigilance à exercer en cas d’offres d’achat, hostiles ou amicales. Bonne lecture.

From Vigilance to Vision

Directors receive a continuous stream of information and try to be vigilant in order to discern from the mix of background and foreground company data those dissonant notes, those underappreciated inputs, those gaps in analysis. They listen to identify the things that don’t add up.

But it’s getting harder to detect those subtle yet critical notes buried in the morass of reading material now available to directors. Only a few years ago, the volume of pre-meeting materials was limited to the width of a three-ring binder and the size of a standard FedEx box, which typically arrived at the director’s office or home a few days before the meeting. As I’ve pointed out in this Handbook, the director most up-to-speed on these “pre-reading” materials was often the director who made the longest plane trip to attend the meeting. Those directors, poring through their binders stuffed with pre-reading materials, were a common sight in the first-class sections of commercial airliners. The binder was a bulky carry-on, but at least its size limited the volume of pre-reading. Not so anymore.

English: A typical FedEx Ground truck. Photogr...
English: A typical FedEx Ground truck. Photographed in Mountain View, on August 26, 2005. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today, services like BoardLink permit companies to transmit vast amounts of information to dedicated devices supplied by boards to their directors. There is a consequent proliferation of PowerPoints, appendices, memos, advisories, agendas, draft minutes, and so on. There is also a potential collapse in timing, because content can be added or revised and resent without FedEx deadlines. The result: significantly more pre-reading, less time.

Directors need the board to put reasonable limits and priorities on this phenomenon. It is true that so long as directors make well-informed decisions without conflict of interest, they should not be held liable for business judgments that do not lead to successful outcomes, and under Delaware law can be exonerated from personal liability by company charter so long as they meet that standard of conduct. However, having more data does not necessarily mean that directors are better informed.

________________________________

* Jennifer Mailander is director of CSCPublishing at Corporation Service Company. This post is an excerpt from the 2013 Edition of The Directors’ Handbook, by Thomas J. Dougherty, partner and head of the Litigation Group of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

« De la bonne gouvernance des associations » | l’Express


Voici un bref article de JMHUET paru dans l’Express récemment. On y traite de la bonne gouvernance des associations et des OBNL en général. Les points soulevés dans l’article sont tout aussi pertinents pour la situation des OBNL au Québec (1).

L’auteur note que le bureau de direction (comité exécutif) occupe et doit occuper une place stratégique et décisionnelle dans la gouvernance … et la gestion des organisations.

Quel est votre point de vue à ce sujet ?

De la bonne gouvernance des associations – l’Express

Les associations sont, comme les entreprises, régies par des règles de bonne gouvernance. L’instance suprême est l’assemblée générale qui, à la différence des entreprises, ne suit pas la règle censitaire « une action = une voix » mais un pur système démocratique où « un membre = une voix« . Ce principe d’égalité entre individus ne doit pas masquer que la gouvernance des associations, au niveau notamment du conseil d’administration, est un enjeu prédominant et avec, pour beaucoup d’associations, une maturité qui doit se renforcer.

Non Profit Workshop 2009-3
Non Profit Workshop 2009-3 (Photo credit: Inkyhack)

Le conseil d’administration d’une association est un lieu de gouvernance essentiel. « L’Institut Français des Administrateurs (IFA) estime que des réserves de progrès résident dans le jeu collectif des acteurs, mais également dans le bon fonctionnement et le bon travail du conseil d’administration, qui demeure la clef de voûte de la bonne gouvernance« , notait Daniel Lebègue, Président de l’IFA lors d’une conférence sur le sujet de la gouvernance associative. Tout comme nous avions évoqué la professionnalisation des bénévoles dans le travail opérationnel de l’association, le même phénomène se dessine autour de la gouvernance.Cette tendance se note à trois niveaux.Dans la composition des conseils d’administration -qui ne sont pas une assemblée d’amis-, mais bel et bien, une instance de gouvernance. A ce titre, les associations matures doivent ouvrir leur conseil à des administrateurs qui ne sont pas membres de ladite association, sur le modèle des administrateurs indépendant des entreprises.

Un certain formalisme doit être respecté, avec notamment une couverture assurantielle des administrateurs, une délégation claire et écrite des délégations de pouvoir et un suivi sérieux des conflits d’intérêts concernant les administrateurs (conventions réglementées, par exemple). Ces éléments classiques en entreprises sont souvent négligés en association alors que c’est un pivot de la gouvernance.

Le travail des administrateurs: il s’agit bien d’une instance de définition de la stratégie, de suivi du respect du projet associatif et de contrôle stricte et bienveillant. Le conseil d’administration n’est pas une instance de gestion mais bien de gouvernance.

_________________________________

(1) Voir tous les billets portant sur la gouvernance des OBNL en faisant une recherche ciblée au bas de cette page (recherchez OBNL dans l’engin de recherche). Profitez-en pour vous inscrire à mon blogue et vous recevrez, si vous le souhaitez, les billets sur l’activité récente en gouvernance ainsi que toutes les informations pertinentes concernant les formations en gouvernance offertes par le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS), la référence en matière de gouvernance www.cas.ulaval.ca

À qui les administrateurs d’une société publique doivent-ils allégeance ?


Cet article, rédigé par Ted Kaufman, de Forbes expose une problématique de gouvernance déterminante et décisoire, une problématique à laquelle chaque administrateur est confronté. Dans la gestion d’une corporation publique (cotée en bourse), quelle importance un administrateur doit-il accorder à l’avis et au vote des actionnaires ?

Il est crucial, pour chaque administrateur, d’avoir une vision claire à ce sujet car son comportement sur le Conseil sera influencé, en grande partie, par la conception qu’il se fait de son rôle de fiduciaire. L’auteur adopte une position très campée, tranchante et … mordante à ce sujet : l’hégémonie et la primauté des actionnaires !

Encore une fois, il est difficile de trancher car on peut toujours répondre que ça dépend ! Mais, à mon avis, chaque administrateur a un point de vue sur la question, une prise de position qui façonne son système de valeur.

Attention cependant … La position de l’auteur doit être analysée en tenant compte de l’environnement légal américain. La thèse de Kaufman est que les actionnaires n’ont à peu près pas d’influence sur ce que le management ou le conseil fait ! Les actionnaires, selon lui, sont les véritables propriétaires et ils sont souverains. Les visiteurs du blogue sont-il d’accord avec cette position ? À vous de décider ! Que pensez-vous de la position de l’auteur ?

À qui les administrateurs d’une société publique doivent-ils allégeance : aux actionnaires, aux investisseurs dominants, aux parties prenantes, au management … ?

Ma réponse est que bien qu’ils soient élus par l’actionnariat, ils doivent exercer leur rôle de fiduciaire dans les MEILLEURS INTÉRÊTS DE LA SOCIÉTÉ, en prenant en compte la position des parties prenantes. C’est la réponse canadienne.

Who Cares What Stockholders Think ?

I can’t recall the venue, but it had to be in the late 1950s or early 1960’s, long before the major shareholders in our major corporations were mutual funds, pension funds, and other institutional investors. The speaker was from an organization called Americans for the Competitive Enterprise System (ACES). His topic was corporate democracy.

English: Sen. Ted Kaufman addresses engineerin...
English: Sen. Ted Kaufman addresses engineering graduates at the University of Delaware. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What he said stayed with me. Democracy, he said, was not only the way our political system worked but also how we ran our corporations. The people who owned common stock voted for a board of directors who in turn elected a chairman and hired a president to run the company. The board met regularly with the president and other hired managers to make sure the company was being run to maximize the economic return for the stockholders.

It sounds almost quaint, doesn’t it?

Corporate governance today has nothing to do with socialism or democracy. What is now clear is that many of our major corporations are operated as dictatorships by their managements, and stockholders have virtually no say in how they are run.

Les actionnaires doivent-ils être consultés sur les rémunérations des hauts dirigeants ? (jacquesgrisegouvernance.com)

Les dix billets les plus populaires cette semaine | Quel est votre choix ?


Voici un relevé des dix billets les plus populaires cette semaine sur mon site. Quel est votre choix ?

English: Windmill Choix near Gastins, Seine et...

Obtenir un siège sur le C.A. d’une grande entreprise | Difficile …  même pour une gestionnaire expérimentée !

Grands courants de pensées en gouvernance | Propositions de réforme au cours des 60 dernières années

Un document essentiel à l’intention du conseil d’administration d’un OBNL

Organiser des réunions de C.A. d’OBNL productives

En rappel => Quel est le cadre juridique du fonctionnement d’un conseil consultatif de PME ?

Guides de gouvernance à l’intention des OBNL : Questions et réponses

Statistiques et constats sur le processus de succession des PCD (CEO)

L’intégrité des administrateurs de sociétés | Une valeur de base universelle

Comment bien se préparer à une réunion du conseil d’administration ?

L’évolution de la “Hawkamah” (Gouvernance en arabe) dans les pays en développement

La gouvernance en France | Le fonctionnement du conseil d’administration, la rémunérations des hauts dirigeants et la transparence


Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, le communiqué de l’Institut français des administrateurs (IFA) qui fait le point sur le colloque du Conseil scientifique de l’Autorité des marchés financiers qui s’est tenu à Paris le 23 mai 2013, en partenariat avec le Club recherche de l’Institut français des administrateurs. L’intérêt pour les questions de gouvernance en France, et dans l’ensemble des pays européens, connaît un essor prodigieux.

En tant que nord-américain, je crois qu’il est important d’être bien informé de la situation de la gouvernance européenne qui, bien que différente de la nôtre, peut s’avérer être une source de réflexion sur nos propres mécanismes de gouvernance.

Lors de ce colloque, M. Gérard Rameix, président de l’Autorité des marchés financiers, a présenté une allocution de clôture (voir au bas du communiqué) remarquée qui fait le point sur les développements récents dans le domaine de la gouvernance en France, notamment toutes les questions touchant au fonctionnement efficace des conseils d’administration (indépendance, limitation du cumul des mandats…), à la divulgation de la rémunération globale des dirigeants et à la diffusion d’information de qualité. Pour plus d’information, veuillez consulter le site de l’IFA.

Fonctionnement du conseil d’administration, rémunérations et transparence : quelle gouvernance pour les entreprises ?

Élément déterminant des modalités de gestion et de contrôle de l’entreprise, au cœur des relations entre sa direction, son conseil d’administration, ses actionnaires et les autres parties prenantes, la gouvernance des entreprises constitue, bien au-delà des marchés financiers, un thème de société. Avec des questions à la clé sur la transparence, les rémunérations et l’équilibre des pouvoirs. Depuis la loi de sécurité financière d’août 2003 qui a instauré en France une obligation d’information du marché en matière de gouvernement d’entreprise et les codes de gouvernement d’entreprise établis par les associations professionnelles, les pratiques ont réellement évolué.

Français : Institut de France, quai de Conti, ...
Français : Institut de France, quai de Conti, Paris, France (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dans le cadre de cette conférence, Gérard Rameix, président de l’Autorité des marchés financiers a déclaré : « Le principe « appliquer ou expliquer » est au cœur d’une régulation « souple » du gouvernement d’entreprise et en conditionne, pour large part, l’efficacité. C’est pourquoi l’AMF veille à la qualité et à la pertinence des explications données par les entreprises qui sont donc essentielles ». S’agissant des politiques de rémunération, « un dispositif plus global d’implication des actionnaires est légitime, d’autant que de nombreux Etats européens l’ont déjà mis en œuvre au cours des dernières années », a poursuivi Gérard Rameix. « L’AMF est favorable à la mise en place d’un régime de say on pay annuel, en particulier pour les plus grandes sociétés cotées, dont les enjeux de rémunération sont plus sensibles ».

« Pour avoir un conseil d’administration qui fonctionne bien et donc une gouvernance efficace, il faut consacrer du temps et de l’intelligence collective à bien composer le Conseil et à recruter les administrateurs dont la société a besoin », a de son côté tenu à déclarer Daniel Lebègue, président de l’Institut français des administrateurs. « Il y a un consensus dans tous les pays européens sur la nécessité d’une transparence renforcée et d’un véritable droit de regard des actionnaires en matière de rémunération des dirigeants. Mais, dans la mise en œuvre de ces principes, les pratiques sont très différentes d’un pays à l’autre, en particulier en ce qui a trait au rôle respectif de l’Assemblée générale des actionnaires et du conseil d’administration », a-t-il ajouté.  « Tous les pays européens s’accordent pour privilégier le recours à la soft law et aux codes professionnels pour faire progresser les pratiques de gouvernance. Il reste à déterminer qui s’assure du respect du code : un comité de place ou l’autorité de marché ? »

Le colloque, qui a bénéficié de l’expertise de personnalités issues des mondes académique, parlementaire et de représentants d’institutions européenne et internationale, s’est articulé autour de deux sessions : – la première focalisée sur la composition et le fonctionnement des conseils d’administration ; – la seconde consacrée aux rémunérations des dirigeants et à la transparence. Enfin, la table ronde conclusive a été l’occasion d’un débat sur la place de la réglementation s’agissant de la gouvernance des entreprises.

____________________________________________

Le Conseil scientifique de l’AMF est composé de 21 personnalités issues du monde académique et financier. Ouvert sur l’international avec la présence de chercheurs étrangers, il a une triple vocation : – améliorer l’information du régulateur sur les réflexions académiques en cours dans le domaine financier ; – identifier les évolutions susceptibles d’avoir un impact sur les champs d’activité de l’AMF ; – initier des travaux de recherche en lien avec les préoccupations du régulateur.

Créé en 2006, le Club recherche de l’Institut Français des Administrateurs (IFA) vise à favoriser les échanges entre universitaires et administrateurs, à initier et à encourager les travaux de recherche dans les domaines de la gouvernance et à faire connaître l’IFA, ses positions et ses propositions dans le monde universitaire. Le Club recherche publie également la Revue Française de Gouvernance d’Entreprise (RFGE), seule revue académique, en langue française, dédiée à la gouvernance d’entreprise.

Grands courants de pensées en gouvernance | Propositions de réforme au cours des 60 dernières années


Je vous propose la lecture d’un essai sur les principaux courants de pensées en gouvernance des sociétés au cours des soixante dernières années. Ce document, écrit par Douglas M. Branson de l’École de Droit de l’Université de Pittsburgh et paru dans le Social Science Research Network (SSRN), représente certainement l’un des points de vue les plus articulés sur la recherche d’une explication valable à la thèse de Berle et Means concernant la séparation de la propriété de celle du contrôle des firmes.

Bien que l’essai soit rédigé dans un style assez provocateur, il est fascinant à lire, pour peu que l’on soit familier avec la langue de Shakespeare et que l’on s’accommode des accents grinçants de l’auteur. Je recommande fortement la lecture de ce texte à tout étudiant de la gouvernance; c’est un must pour comprendre le champ d’étude ! C’est un document que j’ai l’intention de traduire au cours des prochains mois.

Cover of "The Modern Corporation and Priv...
Cover via Amazon

Voici les points saillants de l’essai de Branson (en anglais à ce stade-ci) :

        1. In 1932, Adolph Berle and Gardiner Means documented the widespread dispersion of corporate shareholders, and the atomization of corporate shareholdings. They noted that in the then modern corporation “ownership has become depersonalized.” The result was that a new form of property had come into being. The person who owned the property no longer controlled it, as the farmer who owned the horse had to feed it, teach it pull the plow, and bury it when it died. “In the corporate system, the ‘owner’ of industrial wealth is left with a mere symbol of ownership while the power, the responsibility and the substance which have been an integral part of ownership in the past are being transferred to a separate group in whose hands lies control.” This was the fabled “separation of ownership from control.”
        2. In one of the best known of his books (1956), American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power, Galbraith rhetorically posed a number of solutions to the problem of unchecked corporate power, including the separation of ownership from control, although he generally did not use the Berle & Means terminology. He did not propose nationalization, as the British had done. Instead, he theorized that, indeed, corporations had grown too large, their shareholders no longer controlled them, competitive market forces no longer constrained them, and the potential for abuse was great. That potential would be checked however by the growth of countervailing power inherent in the growth of labor unions, consumer groups and government agencies. Galbraith pointed to the growth and influence of consumer cooperatives which enjoyed great growth in Scandinavia, at least in the post-War years. Essentially, those newly empowered groups would supply the controls historically owners had provided.
        3. The Corporate Social Responsibility Movement of the Early 70s called for government intervention, as the nationalization movement had, but on discrete fronts rather than on a plenary basis. One scholar urged replacement of the one share one vote standard prevalent in U.S. corporate law with a graduated scale so that with acquisition of addition shares owners, particularly institutional owners who were perceived to be excessively mercenary would receive less and less voting power. A “power to the people” mandate would augment the power of individual owners, who generally held fewer shares but were thought to be more socially conscious. Calls for required installation of public interest directors on publicly held corporations’ boards sometimes included sub-recommendations that legislation also require that the publicly minded be equipped with offices and staffs, at corporate expense. Others proposed requirements for social auditing and for mandatory disclosure of social audit results.
        4. Toward the second half of the 1970s, The Corporate Accountability Research Group, created and promoted by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, gathered evidence, marshaled arguments, and advocated the other, more drastic reform of the 1970s, federal chartering of large corporations. In certain of its incarnations, chartering advocates expanded the proposal’s reach, from the 500 largest enterprises to the 2000 largest U.S. corporations by revenue, to any corporation which did a significant amount of business with the federal government, and to certain categories of companies whose businesses were thought to be infected with the public interest. Whatever the universe of such corporations, these companies would have to re-register with a new federal entity, the Federal Chartering Agency. In addition, these corporations would no longer have perpetual existence as they had under state law. Instead the new federal statute corporations would have only limited life charters, good for, say, 20 or 25 years limited.
        5. A Seismic Shift: the Swift Rise of Law and Economics Jurisprudence of the 1980s . Perhaps only once in a lifetime will one see as pronounced a jurisprudential shift as that from the corporate social responsibility and federal chartering movements to the minimalist, non-invasive take of economics on corporate law and corporate governance. Law and economics pointed to a minimalist corporate jurisprudence the core theory of which was that market forces regulated corporate and managerial behavior much better than regulation, laws, or lawsuits ever could.
        6. An Antidote: The Good Governance Movement. The American Law Institute (ALI) Corporate Governance Project of 1994 constituted an implicit rejection of, and an antidote to, the law and economics movement. Succinctly, the ALI evinced a strong belief that, yes, corporate law does have a role to play. That belief, sometimes characterized as the constitutionalist approach, in contrast to the contractarian approach, underline and buttresses the entire ALI Project. The ALI crafted recommended rules for corporate objectives; structure, including board composition and committee structure; duty of “fair dealing” (duty of loyalty); duty of care and the business judgment rule; roles of directors and shareholders in control transactions and tender offers; and shareholders’remedies, including the derivative action and appraisal remedies.
        7. The Early 1990s: The Emphasis on Institutional Investor Activism. Traditionally, though, institutional investors followed the “Wall Street Rule,” meaning that if they developed an aversion to a portfolio company’s performance or governance, they simply sold the stock rather than becoming embroiled in a corporate governance issue. Institutions voted with their feet. That is, they did so until portfolio positions had become so large that if an institutional investor liquidated even a sizeable portion of the portfolio’s stake in a company, the institution’s sales alone would push down the stock’s price. Thus, in the modern era, institutional investors are faced with more of a buy and hold strategy than they otherwise might prefer. So was born an opening to push for yet another proposed reform which would fill the vacuum created by the separation of ownership from control, namely, institutional activism, or “agents watching agents.” The case for institutional oversight was that because “product, capital, labor, and corporate control constraints on managerial discretion are imperfect, corporate managers need to be watched by someone, and the institutions are the only institutions available.”
        8. The Shift to an Emphasis on “Global” Convergence in Corporate Governance. In the second half of the 90s decade, the governance prognosticators did an abrupt about face, abandoning talk about the prospect of institutional shareholder activism in favor of pontification on the prospect of global convergence. The thesis went something like this. Through the process of globalization the world had become a much smaller place. Through use of media such as email and the Internet, governance advocates in Singapore now knew, or knew how to find out, what was happening on the corporate governance front in the United Kingdom and the United States. According to U.S. academics, the global model of good governance would replicate the U.S. model of corporate governance, of course…
        9. Shift of the Emphasis to the Gatekeepers in 2001. Whatever the U.S. system was, it had a great many defects and it did not do the job for which it had been devised. In addition, of course, no sign existed that the convergence predicted had taken place. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) heads off in varying directions but a careful reader can discern that one of the legislation’s dominant themes is strengthening gatekeepers as a means of enhancing watchfulness over corporations. Thus, for example, SOX requires public corporations to have audit committees composed of independent directors, one or more of whom must be financial experts. Section 307 imposes whistleblowing duties upon attorneys who uncover wrongdoing. To enhance their independence, SOX requires that accountings firms which audit public companies no longer may provide a long list of lucrative consulting services for audit clients.
        10.  Emphasis on Independent Directors and Independent Board Committees. The movement for independent directors gathered steam with the 2002 SOX legislation, which required that SEC reporting companies, that is, most publicly held corporations, have an audit committee comprised exclusively of independent directors. The New York Stock Exchange followed by amendments to its Listing Manual that listed public companies have a majority of directors who are independent, making the 1994 ALI recommendation of good practice into a hard and fast requirement. In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act jumped on the independent director bandwagon with its requirement that exchanges refuse to list the shares of corporations who disclose they do not have a compensation committee comprised of independent directors. Observers who have written about the issue assume that the Dodd-Frank disclosure requirement is a de facto requirement that corporations have compensation committees, albeit a backhanded sort of requirement.

L’extrait que je vous présente vous donnera une bonne idée de la teneur des propos de Branson. Vous pouvez télécharger le document de 25 pages.

Vos commentaires sont grandement appréciés. Bonne lecture.

Proposals for Corporate Governance Reform: Six Decades of Ineptitude and Counting

This article is a retrospective of corporate governance reforms various academics have authored over the last 60 years or so, by the author of the first U.S. legal treatise on the subject of corporate governance (Douglas M. Branson, Corporate Governance (1993)). The first finding is as to periodicity: even casual inspection reveals that the reformer group which controls the « reform » agenda has authored a new and different reform proposal every five years, with clock-like regularity. The second finding flows from the first, namely, that not one of these proposals has made so much as a dent in the problems that are perceived to exist. The third inquiry is to ask why this is so? Possible answers include the top down nature of scholarship and reform proposals in corporate governance; the closed nature of the group controlling the agenda, confined as it is to 8-10 academics at elite institutions; the lack of any attempt rethink or redefine the challenges which governance may or may not face; and the continued adhesion to the problem as the separation of ownership from control as Adolph Berle and Gardiner Means perceived it more than 80 years ago.

Articles reliés :

Good corporate governance (timesofmalta.com)

EU plan on corporate governance will bolster shareholders’ duties as well as rights (irishtimes.com)

SEC’s Political Disclosure Proposal Will Improve Corporate Governance (forbes.com)

Buffett soutien les doubles rôles de PCD et PCA de Dimon à JPMorgan !


WOW ! Solide prise de position de Warren Buffet en faveur du maintien de Jamie Dimon comme PCA et PCD de JPMorgan Chase, la plus grande banque américaine. L’article publié dans Bloomberg cette semaine, faisant état de la position de Buffet, montre que le fait de jouer les deux rôles, du moins aux É.U., n’est pas encore accepté comme une pratique exemplaire.

Qu’en pensez-vous ? Buffet peut certainement faire pencher la balance lors de l’assemblée des actionnaires du 21 mai…

Buffett Supports Dimon’s Dual Roles 100% at JPMorgan

Warren Buffett, who has said he personally owns shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), is backing the bank’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon as shareholders vote this month on whether to split his roles.

Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon | Donald Bowers/Getty Images for Fortune

Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon Warren Buffett, chairman of  Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in November that Jamie Dimon, chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co., would be the best candidate to lead the U.S. Treasury Department in a financial crisis.

“I’m 100 percent for Jamie,” Buffett told Bloomberg Television’s Betty Liu yesterday in Omaha, Nebraska. “I couldn’t think of a better chairman.”

Calls for Dimon, 57, to relinquish the chairmanship have mounted since New York-based JPMorgan disclosed risk-control lapses on derivatives bets last year that fueled more than $6.2 billion of losses. In March, the company’s board urged investors to vote against naming a separate chairman at the May 21 meeting, saying that Dimon’s dual role remains the “most effective leadership model.”

JPMorgan Investors Should Oust Most of Board, Glass Lewis Says (bloomberg.com)

Warren Buffett’s Faith in Jamie Dimon (thestreet.com)

The Revolt Against Jamie Dimon (forbes.com)

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK.A)’s Warren Buffett May Be JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s Jamie Dimon’s Last Fan (insidermonkey.com)

Le rôle, le pouvoir et les responsabilités des investisseurs institutionnels


Voici le compte rendu d’une conférence donnée par Luis A. Aguilar, commissaire de la SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) qui décrit le rôle des investisseurs institutionnels et leur influence sur le contrôle des grandes sociétés publiques.

L’article est intéressant parce qu’il énonce deux problématiques cruciales eu regard à la règlementation visant les investisseurs institutionnels. (1) l’importance de la divulgation d’informations fiables aux investisseurs, (2) le besoin des investisseurs d’être entendus sur les considérations de gouvernance, notamment sur la rémunération de la haute direction.

L’article reflète la réalité américaine mais je crois que les avis de M. Aguilar sont aussi valables pour les grandes corporations canadiennes. Voici un extrait du compte rendu qui brosse un tableau éloquent des changements majeurs du rôle et de l’influence des investisseurs institutionnels survenus au cours des 60 dernières années : de 7 % de la capitalisation boursière en 1950 à 67 % en 2010 !

Institutional Investors: Power and Responsibility

Role Played by Institutional Investors

The topic of your conference recognizes the important role played by institutional investors and the great influence they exert in our capital markets. The role and influence of institutional investors has grown over time. For example, the proportion of U.S. public equities managed by institutions has risen steadily over the past six decades, from about 7 or 8% of market capitalization in 1950, to about 67 % in 2010. The shift has come as more American families participate in the capital markets through pooled-investment vehicles, such as mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs).

Institutional investor ownership is an even more significant factor in the largest corporations: In 2009, institutional investors owned in the aggregate 73% of the outstanding equity in the 1,000 largest U.S. corporations.

The New York Stock Exchange, the world's large...
The New York Stock Exchange, the world’s largest stock exchange by market capitalization (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The growth in the proportion of assets managed by institutional investors has been accompanied by a dramatic growth in the market capitalization of U.S. listed companies. For example, in 1950, the combined market value of all stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) was about $94 billion. By 2012, however, the domestic market capitalization of the NYSE was more than $14 trillion, an increase of nearly1,500%. This growth is even more impressive if you add the $4.5 trillion in market capitalization on the NASDAQ market, which did not exist until 1971. The bottom line is, that as a whole, institutional investors own a larger share of a larger market.Of course, institutional investors are not all the same. They come in many different forms and with many different characteristics. Among other things, institutional investors have different organizational and governance structures, and are subject to different regulatory requirements. The universe of institutional investors includes mutual funds and ETFs regulated by the SEC, as well as pension funds, insurance companies, and a wide variety of hedge funds and managed accounts, many of which are unregulated.

And, of course, institutional investors don’t all buy or sell the same asset classes at the same time. To the contrary, they have a wide variety of distinct goals, strategies, and timeframes for their investments. As a result, their interaction with, and impact on, the market occurs in many different ways.

The growth in assets managed by institutions has also affected, and been affected by, the significant changes in market structure and trading technologies over the past few decades, including the development of the national market system, the proliferation of trading venues – including both dark pools and electronic trading platforms – and the advent of algorithmic and high-speed trading. These changes – largely driven by the trading of institutional investors – have resulted in huge increases in trading volumes. For example, in 1990, the average daily volume on the NYSE was 162 million shares. Today, just 23 years later, that average daily volume is approximately 2.6 billion shares – an increase of about 1,600%.

Simply stated, institutional investors are dominant market players, but it is difficult to fit them into any particular category. This poses a challenge for regulators, who must take into account all the many different ways institutional investors operate, and interact, with the capital markets.

It is clear, however, that professionally-managed institutions can help ensure that our capital markets function as engines for economic growth. Institutional investors are known to improve price discovery, increase allocative efficiency, and promote management accountability. They aggregate the capital that businesses need to grow, and provide trading markets with liquidity – the lifeblood of our capital markets.

In doing all this, institutional investors – like all investors – depend on the assurance of a level playing field, access to complete and reliable information, and the ability to exercise their rights as shareowners. That is why fair and intelligent regulation is necessary for the proper functioning of our capital markets.

Institutional Investors: Power and Responsibility (blogs.law.harvard.edu)

Trade Effectively by Just Doing What Institutional Investors are Doing (safehaven.com)

Three Reasons Why Institutions Are Buying Stocks and Why Investors Need to Be Extremely Cautious (business2community.com)