Nouvelles diverses

David Larcker, Bradford Lynch, Brian Tayan et Daniel Taylor publient un texte qui revient sur la transparence des ghrandes entreprises américaines en matière de COVID-19 « The Spread of Covid-19 Disclosure » (29 juin 2020). Un document plein de statistiques et de tendances sur la transparence… vraiment intéressant sachant que l’enjeu de la question n’est pas à négliger.

Extrait :

The COVID-19 pandemic presents an interesting scenario whereby an unexpected shock to the economic system led to a rapid deterioration in the economic landscape, causing sharp changes in performance relative to expectations just a few months prior. For most companies, the pandemic has been detrimental. For a few, it brought unexpected demand. In many cases, supply chains have been strained, causing ripple effects that extend well beyond any one company.

How do companies respond to such a situation? What choices do they make, and how much transparency do they offer? How does disclosure vary in a setting where the potential impact is so widely uncertain? The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique setting to examine disclosure choices in a situation of extreme uncertainty that extends across all companies in the public market. This devastating outlier event provides a rare glimpse into disclosure behavior by managers and boards.

Why This Matters

1. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to examine disclosure practices of companies relative to peers in real time about a somewhat unprecedented shock that impacted practically every publicly listed company in the U.S. We see that decisions varied considerably about whether to make disclosure and, if so, what and how much to say about the pandemic’s impact on operations, finances, and future. What motivates some companies to be forthcoming about what they are experiencing, while others remain silent? Does this reflect different degrees of certitude about how the virus would impact their businesses, or differences in managements’ perception of their “obligations” to be transparent with the public? What does this say about a company’s view of its relation and duty to shareholders?
2. In one example, we saw a consumer beverage company make zero references to COVID-19 in its SEC filings and website, despite the virus plausibly having at least some impact on its business. In another example, we saw a company claim no material changes to its previously reported risk factors when managers almost certainly had relevant information about the virus and the likely impact on sales and operations. What discussion among the senior managers, board members, external auditor, and general counsel leads to a decision to make no disclosures? What should shareholders glean from this decision, particularly in light of peer disclosure?
3. The COVID-19 pandemic represents a so-called “black swan” event that inflicted severe and unexpected damage to wide swaths of the economy. What strategic insights will companies learn from this event? Can boards use these insights to prepare for other possible outlier events, such as climate events, terrorism, cyber-attacks, pandemics, and other emergencies? Should these insights be disclosed to shareholders?

À la prochaine…

Option finance du 6 février 2017 nous apprend que « Le rapport intégré perce dans les entreprises ». Une belle nouvelle pour la RSE tant ce rapport donne une vision globale des choses !

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

C’est la question à laquelle tente de répondre Marianne Harper Gow de chez Baillie Gifford’s dans un article fort intéressant intitulé : « Has ESG morphed to become just a box-ticking exercise? ».

As more groups move to include ESG factors within their fund strategies, Baillie Gifford’s director of corporate governance Marianne Harper Gow argues analysis in this area is too ‘simplistic’ and many processes are undermining the research effort

Selon l’auteur de l’article, l’approche parfois trop simpliste de l’évaluation environnementale, sociale et de gouvernance (ESG) des portefeuilles va complètement à l’encontre de la philosophie, la rigueur et la robustesse du processus de recherche et d’engagement qui devraient faire partie intégrante des prises de décisions en ce qui concerne les investissements et les placements. De plus, selon Gow, la grande variété d’opinions à l’égard ce qui est, ou n’est pas, sous la bannière ESG est sans doute une des raisons pour laquelle, malgré des décennies de discussion et d’intérêt pour l’ESG et l’investissement responsable, il n’y a toujours pas de classement des performances crédibles et largement utilisées qui a vu le jour. Bref, il serait possible de faire un résumé de cet article, mais puisqu’il est bon dans sa totalité et qu’il est plutôt court, je vous recommande fortement d’y jeter un coup d’œil.

Bonne lecture

Julie Bernard, MAP, Adm.A

Étudiante au doctorat (PhD) en sciences de l’administration (Management)

Faculté des sciences de l’administration

Université Laval