Le 28 avril 2020, l’Autorité des marchés financiers a proposé des mesures ciblées pour améliorer la transparence vis-à-vis du marché et le dialogue entre les émetteurs et les actionnaires.
L’engagement actif des actionnaires dans la vie des sociétés cotées est une condition de leur bon fonctionnement et d’une saine gouvernance. A cet égard, l’AMF considère qu’il doit être encouragé. Pour le régulateur, la problématique n’est donc pas d’empêcher l’activisme mais d’en fixer les limites et de se donner la capacité à en maîtriser les excès.
En l’état de la réglementation, l’AMF considère qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de faire évoluer de manière importante le cadre juridique applicable.
Les propositions de l’AMF visent à :
améliorer l’information sur la montée au capital et la connaissance de l’actionnariat, en abaissant le premier seuil légal de déclaration et en rendant publiques les déclarations faites à la société sur le franchissement des seuils fixés dans ses statuts ;
assurer une meilleure information au marché sur l’exposition économique des investisseurs, en complétant les déclarations de positions courtes par une information sur les instruments de dette également détenus (obligations, credit defaults swaps par exemple). L’AMF soutiendra ces propositions au niveau européen ;
promouvoir un dialogue ouvert et loyal entre les sociétés cotées et leurs actionnaires : l’AMF complètera son guide sur l’information permanente et la gestion de l’information privilégiée afin d’y ajouter des développements sur le dialogue actionnarial. Elle complètera également sa doctrine afin de préciser que les émetteurs peuvent apporter toute information nécessaire au marché en réponse à des déclarations publiques les concernant, même en cours de périodes de silence, sous réserve du respect des règles sur les abus de marché. Elle recommandera, par ailleurs, à tout actionnaire qui initie une campagne publique de communiquer sans délai à l’émetteur concerné les informations importantes qu’il adresserait aux autres actionnaires ;
accroître les capacités d’analyse et de réaction de l’AMF afin de lui permettre d’apporter des réponses rapides et adaptées lorsque les circonstances l’exigent : via, par exemple, l’instauration d’un pouvoir d’astreinte en matière d’injonction administrative et d’une faculté d’ordonner à tout investisseur, et non plus seulement à un émetteur, de procéder à des publications rectificatives ou complémentaires en cas d’inexactitude ou d’omission dans ses déclarations publiques.
Intéressant billet sur le Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance mettant en avant l’importance prise par le « S » des critères ESG : « Time to Rethink the S in ESG » (Jonathan Neilan, Peter Reilly, et Glenn Fitzpatrick, 28 juin 2020).
Extrait :
In advising companies on protecting and enhancing corporate reputation—through good and bad times—our guiding principle is to ‘do the right thing’. Simple as it sounds, it is reflected in the adage that ‘good PR starts with good behaviour’. This guiding principle also translates to building your ‘S’ credentials. While the various ESG criteria of the reporting frameworks and ratings agencies are a useful guide, our consistent approach in advising companies is for them to take the steps they believe are genuinely in the best interest of the company and its wider stakeholders. Not every decision will meet the expectations of every stakeholder; but it’s a good place to start.
As the wider sustainability agenda also drives more rapid and fundamental change in global markets and technology innovation, properly considering the pressure from public policy and evolving legal requirements, as well as the needs of key stakeholders, is key to understanding what is (and will be seen as) ‘good behaviour’.
As the focus on the ‘S’ grows, companies will need to shift from a reactive to a proactive position. While governance and environmental data is readily available for most companies, the same is not true of the ‘S’. The leeway companies have been afforded on the ‘S’ in the past is unlikely to continue; and, expectations of (and measurement by) rating agencies and investors will continue to increase.
In light of the economic shocks and social upheaval across the globe, demands from stakeholders—most pressingly investors and Governments—will reach a crescendo over the coming six months. As the sole arbiter of much of the information needed to value the ‘S’ in ESG, companies have an opportunity to demonstrate a willingness to shift levels of transparency before they are forced to do so. Companies understandably tend to highlight the efforts they make, often through their corporate social responsibility or communications departments, rather than the higher-cost, higher-risk analysis of the effectiveness of those efforts. Fundamentally, hastened by the emergence of a global pandemic, the world recognises the significance of the risk that failure to address stakeholder interests and expectations represents to business. That shift can be identified as demand for evidence of positive outcomes as opposed to simply efforts or policies.
As we noted in our 2019 Paper, ESG will never replace financial performance as the primary driver of company valuations. Increasingly, however, it is proving to drive the cost of capital down for companies while playing a hugely important role in companies’ risk management frameworks. Most immediately, companies should get a firm handle on how comprehensive their policies, procedures and data are in the five areas listed through a candid audit, as well as other factors material to their businesses’ long-term success. However, this is just a first step and companies must build a narrative and strategy around disclosure for all future annual reports and, where appropriate, market communications. Investors of all sizes are increasingly driving this factor home to Boards and management. In just one week at the end of April, human capital management proposals from As You Sow, a non-for-profit foundation, received 61% and 79% support at two S&P 500 companies, Fastenal and Genuine Parts, respectively. The two companies must now prepare reports on diversity and inclusion, and describe the company’s policies, performance, and improvement targets related to material human capital risks and opportunities as designed by a small shareholder—as opposed to crafting an approach and associated disclosure themselves.
What has become clear over the past three months is that a host of stakeholders, including many investors, will expect a sea-change in their access to information and company practices. While there is no requirement to be the first mover on this, those that are laggards will face avoidable challenges and a rising threat to their ‘licence to operate’.
Le 29 avril dernier, le Commissaire européen à la Justice Didier Reynders a annoncé une initiative législative autour du devoir de vigilance lors d’une conférence en ligne (que vous pouvez visionner ci-dessus) organisée par le groupe de travail du Parlement européen sur la responsabilité des entreprises.
Celui-ci est revenu sur une étude importante menée autour du devoir de vigilance dans la chaîne d’approvisionnement et du respect des droits de l’homme. Il souhaite lancer une consultation publique autour du sujet afin de préparer une initiative législative :
The results show that voluntary action to address human rights violations, corporate climate and environmental harm, although incentivised though reporting, has not brought about the necessary behavioural change.The study found that only one in three businesses in the EU are currently undertaking due diligence which takes into account all human rights and environmental impacts. The survey asked stakeholders about their perceptions relating to possible regulatory options. 70% of business survey respondents agreed that EU-level rules on a general due diligence requirement may provide benefits for business. Those supportive of EU rules believe it would create legal certainty and a single harmonized standard in place of different approaches in the Member States. They indicate it would help levelling the playing field and increase leverage on supply chains in third counties. They also saw the benefit of due diligence as a defence, should a dispute arise. Stakeholders favoured a mandatory due diligence as a legal standard of care, and generally preferred a cross-sectoral regulatory measure, as many companies operate in multiple sectors.
The current crisis has reinforced the support for action: even business organisations, which have been split before the current crisis, come forward with statements in favour of EU action. Just last week, a coalition of investors managing 5 trillion US dollars of assets has asked for mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. We have already started consulting on the main lines of the possible initiative. The public consultation on the new sustainable finance strategy contains questions regarding sustainable corporate governance and due diligence. DG JUSTICE will also launch its own public consultation regarding the initiative.
À l’image du reporting extrafinancier, les modifications à venir au devoir de vigilance pourraient déboucher sur de nouveaux mécanismes dont du droit dur, c’est-à-dire des sanctions juridiques propres.
Réponse de l’AMF à la consultation publique européenne sur la revue de la directive extra-financière
La directive européenne de 2014 sur la publication d’informations non financières exige des sociétés de plus 500 salariés qu’elles communiquent les risques et opportunités extra-financiers qu’elles considèrent importants pour leur modèle d’affaire. Dans le cadre du Pacte Vert pour l’Europe (« Green deal ») visant à rendre l’économie de l’Union européenne compétitive et plus durable, la Commission européenne a annoncé la révision de cette directive. Voici les propositions que l’AMF entend porter dans le cadre de ces travaux européens.
L’AMF a identifié cinq axes majeurs :
Clarifier le concept de matérialité
Compléter les thèmes sur lesquels les entreprises sont invitées à communiquer
Etendre le périmètre des entreprises soumises à la déclaration de performance extra-financière
Améliorer la fiabilité de l’information extra-financière
Définir des règles de bonne gouvernance pour le futur standard de reporting extra-financier
Le Code civil chinois a été adopté le 28 mai 2020. Il ne rentrera en vigueur qu’au 1er janvier 2021. Deux articles ont attirés mon attention dans une perspective de responsabilité sociétale, articles qui concerne le régime des For-Profit Legal Person (section 2). En substances, voici ce que précisent lesdits articles :
Les actionnaires ne doivent pas intenter à l’intérêt de la personne morale ou à celui des créanciers.
Les entreprises assument une responsabilité sociale.
Order of the President of the People’s Republic of China (No. 45) The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, as adopted at the 3rd Session of the Thirteenth National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on May 28, 2020, is hereby issued, and shall come into force on January 1, 2021. President of the People’s Republic of China: Xi Jinping May 28, 2020 Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (Adopted at the 3rd Session of the Thirteenth National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on May 28, 2020)
Extrait :
Article 83
An investor of a for-profit legal person shall not damage the interests of the legal person or any other investor by abusing the rights of an investor. If the investor abuses the rights of an investor, causing any loss to the legal person or any other investor, the investor shall assume civil liability in accordance with the law. An investor of a for-profit legal person shall not damage the interests of a creditor of the legal person by abusing the independent status of the legal person and the limited liability of the investor. If the investor abuses the legal person’s independent status or the investor’s limited liability to evade debts, causing serious damage to the interests of a creditor of the legal person, the investor shall be jointly and severally liable for the legal person’s debts.
Article 86
In business activities, a for-profit legal person shall comply with business ethics, maintain the safety of transactions, receive government supervision and public scrutiny, and assume social responsibilities.
Merci à mon collègue, le professeur Bjarne Melkevik, de cette information.
La pandémie actuelle peut aboutir à une prise de conscience collective et à un renforcement de la lutte contre les causes du dérèglement climatique, ou bien, au contraire, à une mise entre parenthèses des initiatives en ce sens, car l’attention ainsi que toutes les ressources financières seront consacrées à des mesures de relance économique. La cause climatique passerait alors au second plan face à l’urgence, avec, à terme, des conséquences désastreuses.
Le rôle des gouvernants est majeur. Mais pour orienter correctement les flux financiers, publics comme privés, améliorer l’information environnementale des investisseurs doit également devenir une priorité. Le sujet est peu connu du grand public car d’apparence technique. Pourtant, les enjeux sont considérables.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a concept that notoriously evades definition. Some have said that companies should act in socially responsible ways in their daily operations while charitable donations have historically been brought under this umbrella. The former understanding of CSR is often preferred because simply making charitable donations while doing business in an irresponsible manner causing harm to various stakeholders is clearly undesirable.
India’s company law has a CSR provision requiring companies to donate 2% of their profits from the preceding three years on activities designated by the government. (You can read a detailed analysis of the law in an article by Sandeep Gopalan and me here.) One criticism of such an understanding of CSR is that the meaning restricts itself to charitable donations without venturing into how companies conduct their day to day business.
The coronavirus has given us an unpleasant jolt with which to test if companies are happy to simply comply with the CSR provision and do nothing else to accommodate various stakeholders that are suffering in this crisis. Yet many big businesses in India (Bajaj Auto, Tata Sons, Vedanta Group) promised not to cut salaries of staff during the pandemic. Instead, some companies suggested that they were considering a pay cut for CEOs and other members of the promoter group (the controlling shareholder group in India, typically a family).
(…) When viewed from the perspective of the epidemic, charitable contribution seems like a perfectly valid form of CSR. This is not only because the company is addressing an urgent need at the moment but also because the initiatives have come from individual companies rather than as a response to a forced government mandate of requiring a certain amount of expenditure on CSR activities. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) issued an order stating that companies’ responses to the covid crisis could be classified as CSR. The companies Act only allows spending on designated categories to be classified as CSR. Since one of the designated categories is ‘combating human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, malaria and other diseases’, the order from the MCA was not too surprising. Obviously, India’s rigid definition of CSR means that innovative responses from companies that offered their resorts to be used as temporary care facilities will not be considered CSR.
The lesson to take beyond the pandemic is for the Indian government to resist the urge to intervene in how companies comply with the CSR provision in the law. Allowing companies to be creative and using their CSR activities to gain reputational capital is not a bad idea. In fact, this should be further encouraged by letting companies disclose their social activities along with the CSR disclosures (relating to the required spending) required by the law.
