Nouvelles diverses

Le Financial Reporting Council (FRC) a annoncé à la mi-février 2017 qu’il souhaitait faire évoluer le code de gouvernance des entreprises britanniques. Aussi, le FRC va-t-il procéder à une revue de son code pour obtenir des commentaires.

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has today announced plans for a fundamental review of the UK Corporate Governance Code. This will take account of work done by the FRC on corporate culture and succession planning, and the issues raised in the Government’s Green Paper and the BEIS Select Committee inquiry. The review will build on the Codes globally recognised strengths developed over the past 25 years while considering the appropriate balance between its principles and provisions and the growing demands on the corporate governance framework.

Les objectifs annoncés sont :

This will consider the appropriate balance between the Code’s principles and provisions.  In pursuing any changes, the current strengths of UK governance: the unitary board, strong shareholder rights, the role of stewardship and the ‘comply or explain’ approach, must be preserved. We must not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

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

« La concurrence fiscale est réamorcée » ! C’est sous ce titre que Mme Marie Charrel publie un article dans Le Devoir rappelant que la RSE prend un visage particulier dès le droit fiscal est abordé.

C’est reparti. Lundi, la première ministre du Royaume-Uni, Theresa May, a déclaré devant le patronat britannique qu’elle s’assurerait que son pays ait l’un des taux d’imposition sur les sociétés (IS) « les plus faibles des vingt principales économies mondiales ». Celui-ci doit passer de 20 % à 17 % d’ici à 2020 — voire à 15 % dans la foulée, selon des rumeurs publiées par la presse britannique. Les propos de Mme May ont aussitôt été critiqués par le ministre des Finances allemand, Wolfgang Schäuble.

Le Royaume-Uni n’est pourtant pas le seul à miser sur une baisse de l’imposition des bénéfices pour tenter de séduire les entreprises. Il y a quelques jours, la Hongrie a annoncé qu’elle baisserait son taux d’IS (l’impôt sur les sociétés) à 9 % en 2017, tandis que le Luxembourg réduira le sien de 21 % à 18 % en 2018. « Après une pause pendant la crise, puis les efforts sur la transparence des pratiques, la concurrence fiscale entre les États européens est repartie, sous une forme renouvelée », constate Jean-Pierre Lieb, avocat associé chez Ernst Young.

Hors du Vieux Continent, le Mexique, la Chine, l’Australie ou encore Israël ont également annoncé des baisses ciblées de l’IS cette année. Sans oublier les États-Unis. Le président élu Donald Trump a en effet promis de réduire celui-ci de 35 % à 15 %, et même d’offrir un taux de 10 % aux multinationales américaines acceptant de rapatrier leurs liquidités placées à l’étranger.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Le journal The Guardian publie un article revenant sur la contribution faite au Parlement britannique par le business, energy and industrial strategy (BEIS) committee sur la future réforme de la gouvernance d’entreprise : « MPs’ corporate governance inquiry: what are the key issues? ».

Parliament launches a series of hearings on reforming British boardrooms on Tuesday, as MPs pledge to ensure Theresa May fulfils her promise to clean up big business.

The business, energy and industrial strategy (BEIS) committee is collecting evidence for its own investigation into corporate governance, while the government’s own consultation is expected to start before Christmas.

In her brief campaign to become Conservative party leader, May hit out against the gap between directors’ pay and the wider workforce, while raising the idea of putting workers on boards. Iain Wright, chair of the BEIS committee, said: “I hope she’s not rolling back.”

The submissions to the committee’s corporate governance probe offer ideas to tackle executive pay – the average boss earned £5.5m in 2015, up from just under £5m the year before – and provide clues to the other topics that will be debated in the months ahead.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

La Grande-Bretagne vient de faire évoluer son Code gouvernance d’entreprise en avril 2016 : UK Corporate Governance Code 2016.

Following the 2014 Code amendments, which focussed on the provision by companies of information about the risks which affect longer term viability, the FRC will continue to monitor compliance with these changes. Companies should be presenting information to give a clearer and broader view of solvency, liquidity, risk management and viability. For their part, investors should assess these statements thoroughly and engage accordingly.

To run a corporate board successfully should not be underrated. Constraints on time and knowledge combine with the need to maintain mutual respect and openness between a cast of strong, able and busy directors dealing with each other across the different demands of executive and non-executive roles. To achieve good governance requires continuing and high quality effort.

Chairmen are encouraged to report personally in their annual statements how the principles relating to the role and effectiveness of the board (in Sections A and B of the Code) have been applied. Not only will this give investors a clearer picture of the steps taken by boards to operate effectively but also, by providing fuller context, it may make investors more willing to accept explanations when a company chooses to explain rather than to comply with one or more provisions.

While in law the company is primarily accountable to its shareholders, and the relationship between the company and its shareholders is also the main focus of the Code, companies are encouraged to recognise the contribution made by other providers of capital and to confirm the board’s interest in listening to the views of such providers insofar as these are relevant to the company’s overall approach to governance.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian