Nouvelles diverses | Page 12

Bel article qui amène à réfléchir : Akshaya Kamalnath, « Shareholder Primacy in the Time of Coronavirus », Oxford Business Law Blog, 7 avril 2020.

Extrait :

It has become fashionable in these troubled times to write about how the coronavirus (or Covid-19) situation shows that the writer’s favourite policies are the best ones. Trite as it may be, I don’t want to miss the opportunity to explain and defend shareholder primacy as a theory / principle followed in corporate law.

Do companies have an ethical obligation to take care of employees during the coronavirus pandemic? If not, why are companies asking employees to work from home and even paying employees when they are not coming in to work? Even companies in the gig economy like Uber are stepping up and offering unexpected support to their drivers whom they have refused to consider as employees. For instance, Uber announced that it would offer 14 days of financial assistance to drivers affected by Covid-19. Similarly, to accommodate the demand from workplaces and educational institutions to switch to working online, tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Zoom have begun offering some of their products’ features for free. Why are they going well beyond what current laws require them to do?

Have they begun to embrace stakeholderism (the idea that companies should service all stakeholders equally) and, if so, can we expect such continued benefits being offered to employees in need even after the pandemic has passed? I’d answer both parts of this question in the negative. In my view, these companies are guided by shareholder primacy (the idea that shareholder interests have primacy over that of other stakeholders).

The first and most obvious reason is that shareholders would want directors of the company they have invested in to step up to the occasion when a crisis as big as a pandemic is staring us in the face. While it is normally assumed that shareholder interests translate into profit-making or wealth maximization, intelligent directors would understand that a crisis calls for a different understanding of what shareholders want. The second possible reason for companies to act in the interests of stakeholders at this time is to enhance their reputation. A company making accommodations during a time of crisis might forego some profits in the short-term but will have reputational gains in the long term. The consideration of reputational incentives is not to suggest that companies acting altruistically should be seen as cynical. On the contrary, it is laudable that the directors of these companies have acted in the interests of the company by taking care of relevant stakeholders when it was most needed. The fact that company reputation was one of the variables in the calculus should be noted positively because that shows that shareholder primacy ensures companies act in the interests of other stakeholders when it is most essential. A third reason is that by offering benefits to employees (or independent contractors as in the case of Uber’s drivers) or customers as in the case of the tech companies, the companies have ensured that the relevant stakeholders (customers and employees / independent contractors) would want to work or continue to work with these companies.

If shareholder primacy leads to beneficial outcomes, why is it so reviled? Shareholder primacy is often confused with a myopic focus on short-term profits. To be sure, the company law of most countries requires directors to act in the best interests of the company and, in determining which interests within the company are to be prioritised, to give primacy to that of shareholders. The default assumption is that most shareholders would want to maximise the wealth that they have invested in the company. However, it is left to directors to consider other relevant interests where they are in the best interests of the company. As I have argued above, it was clearly in the interests of the company to prioritise various stakeholders’ interests and act accordingly, and in this instance they have acted accordingly. Not every situation has such an easy answer and so it is left to directors to choose the course of action best suited to the company, with the interests of shareholders being ultimately prioritised.

What happens after the pandemic has passed? While the coronavirus situation is a big crisis and companies have been stepping up, decisions prioritising the interests of one stakeholder over those of others are routine, even in calmer situations, or where a company alone is facing a crisis of some sort. Take for example, employees’ complaints about toxic work culture and harassment, which we now know was the case with Uber in the past. Often the response is to keep the issue under wraps or refuse to address the particular stakeholder’s needs. This unsavoury behaviour cannot however be attributed to either shareholder primacy or stakeholderism. We would expect that shareholders would want companies to clean their house as soon as they know there is trouble so that they are not at the receiving end of the law suit at a later date and, more importantly, because shareholders would want talented employees to be retained within the company. Unfortunately, the unsavoury behaviour is simply an expression of human nature in some cases and better incentives to prevent such behaviour need to be devised. Similarly, for concerns of other stakeholders, the environment for instance, environment protection and climate change laws would constrain directors’ actions rather than relying on principles of either shareholder primacy or stakeholderism to do the job.

All this is to say that there are problems with how companies are run and we need innovative solutions to create better incentives rather than falling back on paying lip service to stakeholderism as the Business Roundtable recently did in its 2019 statement.

À la prochaine…

Plusieurs entreprises européennes ont choisi de s’immatriculer aux Pays-Bas plutôt que dans leur pays d’origine. Pourquoi ce choix ? Mme Laurence Boisseau fournit un bel éclairage dans l’article suivant : « Siège social aux Pays-Bas : les risques pour les actionnaires » (Les Échos.fr, novembre 2019).

Extrait :

Actions à droit de vote multiple

La différence la plus sensible réside dans les actions à droit de vote multiple, qui sont autorisées aux Pays-Bas et pas en France. Dans l’Hexagone, seuls des droits de vote double sont possibles. Aux Pays-Bas existent différentes catégories d’actions, sans aucune limite sur les droits de vote. Cela permet de verrouiller un capital et donc de protéger une entreprise contre une tentative de prise de contrôle.

Autre point, moins favorable aux actionnaires, le seuil à partir duquel il est possible de déposer des résolutions aux assemblées générales. Aux Pays-Bas, il faut avoir rassemblé 3 % du capital, en France, seulement 0,5 %. Et c’est déjà beaucoup, se plaignent certains représentants de fonds. Pour déposer une résolution chez Total, cela suppose d’avoir investi plusieurs centaines de millions d’euros. En revanche, les résolutions sont votées avec les mêmes majorités, simples la plupart du temps. La majorité qualifiée, soit 66 %, concerne des modifications de statuts.

Salaires des patrons

Les salaires des patrons sont en revanche scrutés de plus près en France. Pour l’instant, seule la politique de rémunération est soumise au vote des actionnaires néerlandais. Mais, en 2020, la donne sera différente car les Pays-Bas auront transposé la directive des actionnaires. L’assemblée générale votera donc les rémunérations individuelles des dirigeants, avec un vote consultatif. En France, ce vote est devenu contraignant avec la loi Sapin II suite à l’affaire Renault.

Les minoritaires sont mieux traités aux Pays-Bas en matière de retrait de la cote : le seuil à partir duquel une société peut être retirée est de 95 % aux Pays-Bas contre 90 % en France depuis la loi Pacte. Il est donc plus favorable aux minoritaires dans le premier cas.

Enfin, les Pays Bas offrent un cadre plus accueillant aux « class actions », ces actions collectives en justice par lesquelles des actionnaires peuvent demander des comptes à des entreprises. Dans certaines affaires, des plaignants ont obtenu des sommes importantes. En 2007, la justice a accordé 1,37 milliard d’euros à près de 300.000 actionnaires de la banque franco-belge Dexia, en lien avec l’effondrement du cours de Bourse en 2001. En France, les « class actions » n’existent pas pour les affaires concernant la Bourse.

À la prochaine…

Article intéressant dans le Los Angeles Daily News à propos de choix faits par Disney : « Disney to stop paying 100,000 workers but is still on track to give shareholders $1.5 billion ». Une simple question me vient en tête : où est la RSE de la souris ?

Extrait :

alt Disney Co. will stop paying more than 100,000 employees this week, nearly half of its workforce, as the world’s biggest entertainment company tries to weather the coronavirus lockdown, it was reported Monday.

Suspending pay for thousands of so-called cast members will save Disney up to $500 million a month across its theme parks and hotels, which have been shut in Europe and the U.S. for almost five weeks, the Financial Times reported.

But slashing fixed costs in a more severe way than other theme-park owners, such as NBCUniversal and Warner Media, poses significant risks to the reputation of the century-old empire behind Mickey Mouse. The decision leaves Disney staff reliant on state benefits — public support that could run to hundreds of millions of dollars over coming months — even as the company protects executive-bonus schemes and a $1.5 billion dividend payment due in July.

(…) Disney over the past month has raised debt and signed new credit facilities, leaving the company with about $20 billion in fresh cash to draw upon for a downturn. “They could afford” not to furlough staff, said Rich Greenfield, analyst at BTIG, The Times reported.

À la prochaine…

Financial Advisor publie une synthèse pertinente à l’heure de la COVID-19 : « ‘Social Washing’ Is Becoming Growing Headache For ESG Investors » (par Alastair Marsh, 10 avril 2020).

Extrait :

ESG investors face a new threat in the age of coronavirus: “social washing.”

Much like the greenwashing that exaggerates or misrepresents the environmental credentials of a project or a company, social washing can occur when the impact of an investment on labor rights or human rights are falsely overstated, said Arthur Krebbers, head of sustainable finance for corporates at Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc’s NatWest Markets unit. And it’s a growing risk as investors focus more attention on social issues.

In the past six weeks, NatWest has seen a significant increase in inquiries from clients on issues such as sick leave for workers and the rights of contract workers.

The coronavirus outbreak is awakening fund managers who consider environmental, social and governance issues when investing to blind spots in their analysis of companies. While fighting climate change has been the top priority for many ESG funds, the spreading pandemic is prompting investors to put a greater emphasis on the “S” of ESG and consider how companies treat employees during the pandemic.

Krebbers’s comments followed the Principles for Responsible Investment, the biggest network of responsible investment firms, which said last month that ESG investors must up their game to hold companies accountable for social issues. The PRI emphasized how the lack of paid sick leave or benefits has left many workers in precarious positions during coronavirus lockdowns.

“The big challenge with social is the data,” Krebbers said. “The reporting tends to be more localized and it’s harder to define, especially when you compare to environmental issues where the carbon footprint provides for a well-understood, comparable metric. A lot more thought and analysis is required if we are to avoid ‘social washing’ situations.”

À la prochaine…