Nouvelles diverses | Page 51

Excellent article de MM. Cappelletti et Dufour dans le Harvard Business Review : « Manager le bombardement normatif » (18 janvier 2017). Cet article revient sur l’inflation des normes de toute sorte (qui dépasse le seul droit) à laquelle font face les entreprises et propose un management de ces normes.

Nous sommes ainsi dans une ère où la non-conformité constitue un risque à part entière et où il est aisé de se voir fermer un accès à un marché pour non-conformité à une norme. Taille des concombres, garanties santé, teinte des pare-brises, quels points communs ? Les entreprises de tous les secteurs sont affectées par un même constat : celui d’un choc de conformité qu’il convient de gérer comme un axe de pilotage intégré à la stratégie. Depuis une dizaine d’années, la question du management des normes a fait irruption dans le monde des affaires jusqu’à devenir un enjeu de société.

Ainsi, le Medef et de nombreux dirigeants protestent aujourd’hui avec virulence contre l’inflation normative qui étouffe les entreprises, petites ou grosses. Le président de la République François Hollande a même fait du « choc de simplification », pour réduire le nombre de règlements qui s’abattent sur les organisations, un élément central de son programme économique. Face à ces enjeux, les managers ne peuvent plus rester inactifs. Quels sont les dysfonctionnements que fait peser l’excès de normes sur le management des entreprises ? Quelles sont les solutions pour mieux gérer ce phénomène, voire pour faire du management des normes une nouvelle compétence managériale clé autant qu’un avantage concurrentiel pour les entreprises ?

Quelle solution ?

Dans ces organisations, le management des normes est devenu un processus stratégique piloté par la direction et décentralisé vers les managers. Celui-ci repose sur quatre principes clés :

1. Le toilettage : l’environnement normatif fait l’objet d’une veille permanente et d’une adaptation rapide lorsqu’une évolution est détectée ;

2. L’orchestration : le management des normes est synchronisé par les directions générales et décentralisé vers les managers et leurs équipes ;

3. La négociation : la mise en place de nouvelles normes est expliquée par le biais des managers aux salariés et accompagnée par des formations si nécessaire ;

4. Le comportement éthique : les salariés et les managers sont aussi évalués sur le respect des normes et, parfois même, intéressés à ce respect.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, merci à Leo Strine de rappeler cette évidence : les CA doivent se préoccuper des parties prenantes ! Dans son article « Corporate Power is Corporate Purpose I: Evidence from My Hometown », Leo Strine s’appuie sur une analyse historique ô combien intéressante… À lire de toute urgence

Le message est clair (j’ai extrait deux phrases qui me semblent ne prêter guère le flanc à la critique) :

• This article is the first in a series considering a rather tired argument in corporate governance circles, that corporate laws that give only rights to stockholders somehow implicitly empower directors to regard other constituencies as equal ends in governance.
• DuPont’s board knew that only one corporate constituency — the stockholders — called the shots and that they were expected to make their end investors’ best interests, even if that meant hurting other constituencies. The DuPont saga isn’t a story about bad people, but a reminder to those with genuine concern for non-shareholder constituencies to face the truth and support changes in the power dynamics affecting corporate governance that make due regard for non-shareholder constituencies a required obligation for the conduct of business.

Using recent events in the corporate history of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company—more commonly referred to today as DuPont—as a case study, this article makes the point that the board of directors is elected by only one constituency—stockholders—and that core power structure translates into corporate purpose. DuPont is an American icon, creator of household names like Nylon and Mylar, which prided itself on its core values, which included commitments to the safety and health of the communities in which DuPont operated and to treat its employees with dignity and respect. But when an activist investor came, DuPont reacted by preemptively downsizing—cutting jobs, and spinning off assets. After winning the proxy fight, DuPont failed to meet the aggressive earnings it used in its campaign. More job cuts came, the CEO was replaced with a member of her proxy fight slate, and DuPont soon embraced a merger consistent with the activists’ goals. At the same time, DuPont demanded tax and other incentives from the affected community it had asked to rally around it in the proxy fight. It did all this even though at no time was there a threat of a lawsuit or judicial intervention from unhappy shareholders. The DuPont saga illustrates how power dictates purpose in our corporate governance system. DuPont’s board knew that only one corporate constituency—the stockholders—called the shots and that they were expected to make their end investors’ best interests, even if that meant hurting other constituencies. The DuPont saga isn’t a story about bad people, but a reminder to those with genuine concern for non-shareholder constituencies to face the truth and support changes in the power dynamics affecting corporate governance that make due regard for non-shareholder constituencies a required obligation for the conduct of business.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Dans un article paru le 2 février 2017 (« CEOs share their views on corporate governance reform », The Telegraph), des PDG et des chefs de la haute-direction partage leur analyse de la réforme proposée par Theresa May.

So what changes, in what could be the most significant reform of corporate governance since the 2005 Greenbury report, is the paper proposing to make – and how are business leaders responding?

Morceaux choisis :

• “Unions are angry that the proposal to have workers on boards has been dropped, in favour of advisory panels for workers and consumers, and the allocation of special responsibilities to non-executives. Large private companies will be dismayed about proposals about new rules for them. They may argue that this has been based on the poor behaviour of a small minority.”
• “The paper toes a very careful line – raising important questions – and then delivering fairly watered-down recommendations. For example, the paper suggests a binding annual shareholder vote on executive pay, but excludes some elements of executive pay packages from the vote.
• “I welcome any effort that encourages business to do the right thing, but corporate governance is about so much more than regulating executive pay. The boardroom sets the standard for the whole of the business and must be accountable for that ».
• « For reform to be taken forward, business leaders should be encouraged to focus on changes that drive long-term prospects ».

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Martin Lipton vient de publier un bel article « Corporate Governance: The New Paradigm » le 11 janvier 2017 sur le Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation. Une magnifique synthèse qui met en lumière la nouvelle gouvernance d’entreprise qui s’en vient.

In essence, the New Paradigm recalibrates the relationship between public corporations and their major institutional investors and conceives of corporate governance as a collaboration among corporations, shareholders and other stakeholders working together to achieve long-term value and resist short-termism. In this framework, if a corporation, its board of directors and its CEO and management team are diligently pursuing well-conceived strategies that were developed with the participation of independent, competent and engaged directors, and its operations are in the hands of competent executives, investors will support the corporation and refuse to support short-term financial activists seeking to force short-term value enhancements without regard to long-term value implications. As part of their stewardship role, institutional investors will work to understand corporations’ strategies and operations and engage with them to provide corporations with opportunities to understand the investors’ opinions and to adjust strategies and operations in order to receive the investors’ support.

Qu’implique ces nouvelles orientations de la gouvernance d’entreprise ? Martin Lipton les met en lumière magnifiquement :

For corporations, the New Paradigm will:

• alleviate pressures to maximize profits and equity share value in the short term at the expense of the long term;
• encourage corporations to pursue thoughtful strategies for maximizing profits and equity share value in the long term;
• encourage corporations to incorporate relevant sustainability, ESG (environmental, social and governance) and CSR (corporate social responsibility) considerations in developing their long-term strategies and operations planning;
• encourage corporations to be transparent in their financial reporting; and
• encourage a corporation to periodically review governance and thoughtfully consider the principles promulgated or endorsed by its major investors.

For investors, the New Paradigm will:

• increase the willingness to withstand cyclical headwinds and short-term market fluctuations in the pursuit of long-term value;
• minimize reliance on short-term financial performance metrics and promote a more holistic understanding of corporations’ businesses;
• encourage investors to consistently support the pursuit of well-designed long-term strategies by the corporations in which they invest;
• discourage investors from supporting short-term financial activists that advocate only short-term profit and value maximization;
• discourage investors from outsourcing proxy voting decisions to proxy advisory firms or otherwise basing such decisions on “check-the-box” principles, scores or formulas;
• not discourage investors from entertaining proposals by responsible activist shareholders for support in improving the strategy or operations of under-performing corporations; and
• encourage investors to address relevant sustainability, ESG and CSR matters. At the interface between corporations and investors, the New Paradigm will:
• encourage investors to communicate directly their preferences, expectations and policies to corporations;
• encourage corporations to provide meaningful communications about strategy, long-term objectives and governance, and encourage investors to actively listen to corporations and review these communications;
• encourage corporations to establish and maintain meaningful, direct long-term relationships with significant investors in corporations and encourage those investors to have the appropriate policies, personnel and procedures for meaningful reciprocity in the relationship; and
• where corporations are pursuing subpar strategies that are unlikely to bring long-term success, encourage investors to use behind-the-scenes, direct engagement with those corporations as a first line of action.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Kim Auclair propose un billet « Conseil d’administration : les bonnes attitudes à prendre ». Elle partage son expérience…

Au sein d’un conseil d’administration (CA), quelles attitudes doit avoir un membre pour que l’expérience lui soit enrichissante autant que pour l’organisation.

Voici donc quelques pistes de réflexion. Il s’agit principalement d’éléments m’ayant le plus marquée.

• Se préparer avant chaque rencontre
• Questionner et être à l’écoute au lieu de dicter des conseils
• Avoir du vécu ou une passion en lien avec l’organisation
• Être disponible
• Être patient et avoir une ouverture d’esprit

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Dans un article de Le Revenu (24 janvier 2017), Alain Chaigneau propose une intéressante synthèse des implications du vote de la loi Sapin II sur la rémunération des hauts dirigeants (et l’adoption du fameux say on pay) : « Un contrôle encore plus serré de la rémunération des dirigeants ».

Cette année, lors des assemblées générales, le contrôle de la rémunération des entreprises cotées en Bourse va encore se durcir. Les actionnaires avaient déjà leur mot à dire en la matière, sous forme du fameux « say on pay ».

Mais la loi dite Sapin 2 (transparence, lutte contre la corruption, modernisation de l’économie), adoptée dans sa forme définitive le 8 novembre dernier, va encore resserrer les mailles du filet.

La place attend avec impatience les décrets d’application de ces textes, d’ici la fin mars. Mais l’essentiel du nouveau dispositif est maintenant connu, comme l’a écrit Stéphanie de Robert Hautequere, avocat expert au cabinet Fidal : « Avec la loi Sapin 2, tant le mode de calcul que le montant des rémunérations des dirigeants seront désormais soumis à un vote contraignant – et non plus simplement consultatif – des actionnaires. Ce double vote s’appliquera à toutes les entreprises cotées sur Euronext ».

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, c’est un beau papier que proposé sur SSRN et au titre accrocheur « Socially Responsible Firms » (Ferrell, Allen and Liang, Hao and Renneboog, Luc, Socially Responsible Firms (August 2016). European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) – Finance Working Paper No. 432/2014). Principale enseignement de cette étude : la problématique de la responsabilité sociétale ne serait pas antinomique avec la primauté de la valeur actionnariale.

The desirability for corporations to engage in socially responsible behavior has long been hotly debated among economists, lawyers, and business experts. Back in the 1930s, two American lawyers, Adolf A. Berle, Jr., and E. Merrick Dodd, Jr., had a famous public debate addressing the question: to whom are corporations accountable? Berle argued that the management of a corporation should be held accountable only to shareholders for their actions, and Dodd argued that corporations were accountable to both the society in which they operated and their shareholders. The lasting interest in this debate reflects the fact that the issues it raises touch on the basic role and function of corporations in a capitalist society.

(…) In our paper, ‘Socially Responsible Firms’, we take a comprehensive look at the CSR agency and good governance views around the globe. By means of a rich and partly proprietary CSR data set with global coverage across a large number of countries and composed of thousands of the largest companies, we test these two views by examining whether traditional corporate finance proxies for firm agency problems, such as capital spending cash flows, managerial compensation arrangements, ownership structures, and country-level investor protection laws, account for firms’ CSR activities. While other studies using a within-country quasi-experimental approach focus on the marginal effect of variation in agency problems, our data and empirical setting enable us to examine its average effect. Based on this comprehensive analysis, we fail to find evidence that CSR conduct in general is a function of firm agency problems. Instead, consistent with the good governance view, well-governed firms, as represented by lower cash hoarding and capital spending, higher payout and leverage ratio, and stronger pay-for-performance, are more likely to be socially responsible and have higher CSR ratings. In addition, CSR is higher in countries with better legal protection of shareholder rights and in firms with smaller excess voting power held by controlling shareholders. Moreover, a higher CSR rating moderates the negative association between a firm’s managerial entrenchment and value. All these findings lend support to the good governance view and suggest that CSR in general is not inconsistent with shareholder wealth maximization.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian