Nouvelles diverses

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, on revient toujours aux B Corporation notamment la Public Benefit Corporation du Delaware ! Voici une des premières études empiriques menées sur le sujet : Michael B. Dorff, James Hicks et Steven Solomon Davidoff , « The Future or Fancy? An Empirical Study of Public Benefit Corporations » (4 février 2020).

Une belle question que se posent les auteurs : Using our novel dataset, we can discern whether for-profit investment is occurring in PBCs, and if so, whether it is different in kind from ordinary early stage investment.

Extrait :

The PBC has stirred much debate and speculation about the future of
the corporation. Some have called it the future while others decried the
form as mere public relations or purpose washing. In this article we
have attempted to add data to the debate. Using a hand-collected
sample of all Delaware-registered PBCs that received investment
between 2013 and 2018 we examine whether PBCs are the future or
mere fancy.
We find that neither hypothesis holds. Instead, we find that there are
295 PBCs which have received investment from VC funds amounting
to over $2.5 billion in the aggregate. This investment is significant
because it shows that the PBC form is not a failure and that it is
capable of attracting for-profit investment, a marker of success. This
investment is coming not just from pro-social VCs but from top-tier
firms.
Nonetheless, we also find that PBCs are being funded over a wide
range of mostly consumer-focused industries (banking, food,
education, technology, and more), implying that the form is a
secondary consideration to the for-profit motive. In other words, the
PBC form is most likely to receive VC funding when the PBC’s
business strategy suggests the form will benefit a for-profit mission.
Our evidence also suggests that PBC round sizes are smaller than their
purely profit-seeking peers, implying that VCs are taking less risk with
these forms than with traditional corporations.
Ultimately, we theorize that, based on our findings, the future course
of the PBC is uncertain.

À la prochaine…

« Benefit Corporation : une normativité de concurrence au service de la RSE », c’est sous ce titre que Margaux Morteo et moi-même avons publié un article dans la revue en ligne Éthique publique : Ivan Tchotourian et Margaux Morteo, « Benefit Corporation : une normativité de concurrence au service de la RSE », Éthique publique [En ligne], vol. 21, n° 1 | 2019, mis en ligne le 24 septembre 2019, consulté le 13 novembre 2019 .

Nous y développons la thèse d’une normativité de concurrence.

Plan :

1. Introduction

2. Certification B Corp.

2.1. Intérêts de la certification

2.2. Procédure de certification : les trois étapes

3. Réglementation étatsunienne : présentation de la Public Benefit Corporation

3.1. Définition de bénéfices publics dans les statuts

3.2. Assouplissement des devoirs fiduciaires

3.3. Instauration d’une super-majorité

3.4. Obligation de reporting renforcée

4. Nouvelle forme d’interaction normative

4.1. Normativité de concurrence

4.2. Avantages et inconvénients des normes concurrentes

5. Conclusion

Résumé :

Les entreprises à mission sociétale (dont la fameuse Benefit Corporation américaine) constituent une innovation majeure du droit des sociétés et de la responsabilité sociétale des entreprises (RSE). Poussée par la finance d’impact, la Benefit Corporation a la particularité de permettre à des sociétés par actions de poursuivre des fins lucratives et sociales. Cette étude s’intéresse à l’instrument normatif à la base de l’émergence de ces entreprises. Elle analyse l’interaction entre les normes pour démontrer qu’il y a hybridation autour d’une normativité originale de « concurrence ». La certification B Corp. constitue la première base normative de ces entreprises. Toutefois, le législateur américain de l’État du Delaware (mais également d’autres États américains) est venu contribuer à cette normativité en adoptant une législation consacrée à la Benefit Corporation. Cette étude met en lumière qu’en matière de Benefit Corporation, autorégulation et réglementation se concurrencent, en rupture avec l’opposition, la substitution, la supériorité ou la complémentarité entre normes traditionnellement soulignées dans la littérature.

À la prochaine…

La province de l’Ontario est en train de travailler sur une réforme de son droit des sociétés comme en témoigne ce document « Business Law Advisory Council Fall 2016 Report » déposé au début du mois de mars.

The Ministry of Government and Consumer Services sought public feedback on the draft report of the Business Law Advisory Council (BLAC) to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services on priorities and recommendations for reform of Ontario’s corporate and commercial legislation from November 16 to December 12, 2016.

Following the Council’s consideration of the consultation feedback, the Council has now finalized the report. Attached is the final report submitted by BLAC to the Minister on February 3, 2017.

This report suggests recommendations to amend the following acts:
• the Business Corporations Act
• the Personal Property Security Act
• the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (and the General Regulation under the Act)

It also now includes the following three issues for future consideration:
• board diversity
• majority voting
• benefit corporations

Extrait sur le vote majoritaire :

Under the OBCA (and most other Canadian corporate statutes), shareholders do not have the right to vote against a candidate for election to the board of directors. Majority voting is a work around that requires a public company to give shareholders the ability to vote for or withhold their votes (the only options under the OBCA) from individual directors and to have the numbers voted for and withheld made public. In its current form in Canada, directors who did not receive a majority of votes cast in favour of their election must tender their resignations to the board. It is then for the board to determine whether or not it is in the best interests of the corporation for the board to accept the resignation of any director.

Majority voting in various forms has been adopted by Canadian public companies since 2006. In 2014 the Toronto Stock Exchange made majority voting mandatory for its listed issuers.

There are many who do not believe that the TSX requirement is enough. Among other things, it leaves with the board of directors the authority to decide whether a director who has not received a majority of votes in favour of his or her election should remain on the board. Moreover, the TSX provisions do not apply to public companies that are listed on the TSX Venture Exchange. In September 2016, the federal government introduced proposed amendments to the CBCA which would result in director candidates who have not received a majority of votes cast in favour of their election not being elected (subject to certain exceptions).

Majority voting is an important priority for the Council. We are reviewing the approach in the proposed amendments to the CBCA and whether improvements could be made to this approach in developing proposals for the OBCA.

Extrait sur les Benefit Corporations :

3. Benefit Corporations

Benefit corporations are for profit corporations that have a broad purpose to create value for all stakeholders. The directors and officers of these entities are required to consider the impact of their decisions on shareholders, but also on employees, society and on the environment. In the U.S. 30 states (as well as the District of Columbia) have adopted legislation that provides for the creation of benefit corporations. Legislation providing for benefit corporations exists or is under discussion in other jurisdictions around the world as well.

Benefit corporations are different from social enterprise legislation currently in force in British Columbia and Nova Scotia. The legislation in those provinces provide for forms of « hybrid corporations » which are similar in form to not-for-profit corporations, but which also have a limited ability to engage in business activities (and are subject to a number of restrictions not imposed on for-profit organizations). The Ontario government has also explored the introduction of legislation to facilitate hybrid corporations as part of its social enterprise strategy.

The Council has received input on the value of and demand for benefit corporation legislation in Ontario and will consider this issue further.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Le Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation propose un bel article sous la plume de Frederick Alexander : « Moving Beyond Shareholder Primacy: Can Mammoth Corporations Like ExxonMobil Benefit Everyone? ». Une belle occasion de revenir sur le thème de la Benefit Corporation et de la remise en cause de la primauté actionnariale dont elle peut être la cause…

The New York Times recently took issue with Rex Tillerson, the President-elect’s nominee for Secretary of State, and the current CEO of ExxonMobil. Why? “Tillerson Put Company’s Needs Over U.S. Interests,” accused the front page headline. The article details how the company puts shareholders’ interests before the interests of the United States and of impoverished citizens of countries around the world.

In response, a company spokesman insisted that all laws were followed, and that “‘[a]bsent a law prohibiting something, we evaluate it on a business case basis.’” As one oil business journalist puts it in the article: “‘They are really all about business and doing what is best for shareholders.’” Thus, as long as a decision improves return to shareholders, its effect on citizens, workers, communities or the environment just doesn’t rank.

Unfortunately, this idea—evaluate the “business” case, without regard to collateral damage, permeates the global capital system. Corporations are fueled by financial capital, which ultimately comes from our bank accounts, pension plans, insurance premiums and mutual funds, and from foundations and endowments created for public benefit—in other words, our money. And yet when that capital is invested in companies that ignore societal and environmental costs, we all suffer: Corporations use our savings to drive climate change, increase political instability, and risk our future in myriad ways.

The good news is that structures like “benefit corporations” can help us repair our broken system of capital allocation—but the clock is ticking.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Dans un article publié aujourd’hui, Mélissa Schweyer revient sur le thème de la Benefit Corporation pour en prôner une adoption au Canada : « Benefit Corporations for a Sustainable Economy » (TripleUndit, 20 janvier 2016).

In 2015, we witnessed what is possible when large groups of people come together to change the world. But with the adoption of both the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement, we have a lot of promises to keep and work to get done.

A sustainable economy is within our reach, but it will take the cooperation of multiple stakeholders, the investment of billions of funds and the dedication of the entire world.

Lobbyists, activists, scientists and politicians have already — quite successfully — mapped out some of the important policies that need to be adopted by governing bodies around the world in order to propel us into a sustainable economy by 2030.

(…) Any policy that can boost cooperation, facilitate multi-channel communications, incentivize information-sharing, strengthen scalable impact, create new sustainable capital, mitigate environmental degradation, motivate early adoption and provide long-term solutions are policies worth lobbying for.

Today, I’m lobbying for a policy that can do all of those things.

I strongly believe that governments should adopt policies that provide companies with the ability to register as purpose-driven corporations. Purpose-driven corporations are different from traditional for-profit companies and nonprofit organizations because they operate with a triple bottom line, equally valuing profits, people and the planet.

Legislative terminology refers to them as Benefit Corporations.

Pour rappel, le Barreau canadien avait pris position à l’été 2014 pour demander au gouvernement fédéral de faciliter la création des Benefit Corporation (ici).

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) has recommended that Parliament change the federal statute under which businesses are established to make it clear that corporations can pursue public benefit purposes beyond pure profit.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian