actualités internationales | Page 4

Bel article qui amène à réfléchir : Akshaya Kamalnath, « Shareholder Primacy in the Time of Coronavirus », Oxford Business Law Blog, 7 avril 2020.

Extrait :

It has become fashionable in these troubled times to write about how the coronavirus (or Covid-19) situation shows that the writer’s favourite policies are the best ones. Trite as it may be, I don’t want to miss the opportunity to explain and defend shareholder primacy as a theory / principle followed in corporate law.

Do companies have an ethical obligation to take care of employees during the coronavirus pandemic? If not, why are companies asking employees to work from home and even paying employees when they are not coming in to work? Even companies in the gig economy like Uber are stepping up and offering unexpected support to their drivers whom they have refused to consider as employees. For instance, Uber announced that it would offer 14 days of financial assistance to drivers affected by Covid-19. Similarly, to accommodate the demand from workplaces and educational institutions to switch to working online, tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Zoom have begun offering some of their products’ features for free. Why are they going well beyond what current laws require them to do?

Have they begun to embrace stakeholderism (the idea that companies should service all stakeholders equally) and, if so, can we expect such continued benefits being offered to employees in need even after the pandemic has passed? I’d answer both parts of this question in the negative. In my view, these companies are guided by shareholder primacy (the idea that shareholder interests have primacy over that of other stakeholders).

The first and most obvious reason is that shareholders would want directors of the company they have invested in to step up to the occasion when a crisis as big as a pandemic is staring us in the face. While it is normally assumed that shareholder interests translate into profit-making or wealth maximization, intelligent directors would understand that a crisis calls for a different understanding of what shareholders want. The second possible reason for companies to act in the interests of stakeholders at this time is to enhance their reputation. A company making accommodations during a time of crisis might forego some profits in the short-term but will have reputational gains in the long term. The consideration of reputational incentives is not to suggest that companies acting altruistically should be seen as cynical. On the contrary, it is laudable that the directors of these companies have acted in the interests of the company by taking care of relevant stakeholders when it was most needed. The fact that company reputation was one of the variables in the calculus should be noted positively because that shows that shareholder primacy ensures companies act in the interests of other stakeholders when it is most essential. A third reason is that by offering benefits to employees (or independent contractors as in the case of Uber’s drivers) or customers as in the case of the tech companies, the companies have ensured that the relevant stakeholders (customers and employees / independent contractors) would want to work or continue to work with these companies.

If shareholder primacy leads to beneficial outcomes, why is it so reviled? Shareholder primacy is often confused with a myopic focus on short-term profits. To be sure, the company law of most countries requires directors to act in the best interests of the company and, in determining which interests within the company are to be prioritised, to give primacy to that of shareholders. The default assumption is that most shareholders would want to maximise the wealth that they have invested in the company. However, it is left to directors to consider other relevant interests where they are in the best interests of the company. As I have argued above, it was clearly in the interests of the company to prioritise various stakeholders’ interests and act accordingly, and in this instance they have acted accordingly. Not every situation has such an easy answer and so it is left to directors to choose the course of action best suited to the company, with the interests of shareholders being ultimately prioritised.

What happens after the pandemic has passed? While the coronavirus situation is a big crisis and companies have been stepping up, decisions prioritising the interests of one stakeholder over those of others are routine, even in calmer situations, or where a company alone is facing a crisis of some sort. Take for example, employees’ complaints about toxic work culture and harassment, which we now know was the case with Uber in the past. Often the response is to keep the issue under wraps or refuse to address the particular stakeholder’s needs. This unsavoury behaviour cannot however be attributed to either shareholder primacy or stakeholderism. We would expect that shareholders would want companies to clean their house as soon as they know there is trouble so that they are not at the receiving end of the law suit at a later date and, more importantly, because shareholders would want talented employees to be retained within the company. Unfortunately, the unsavoury behaviour is simply an expression of human nature in some cases and better incentives to prevent such behaviour need to be devised. Similarly, for concerns of other stakeholders, the environment for instance, environment protection and climate change laws would constrain directors’ actions rather than relying on principles of either shareholder primacy or stakeholderism to do the job.

All this is to say that there are problems with how companies are run and we need innovative solutions to create better incentives rather than falling back on paying lip service to stakeholderism as the Business Roundtable recently did in its 2019 statement.

À la prochaine…

Bel article publié le 1er avril 2020 dans la Harvard Business Review intitulé : « Coronavirus Is Putting Corporate Social Responsibility to the Test ». La RSE passera-t-elle le texte de l’empirique ?

Extrait :

A great many large companies talk about having a social purpose and set of values, or about how much they care for their employees and other stakeholders. Now is the time for them to make good on that commitment. Research suggests that people only truly believe that their company has a purpose and clear values when they see management making a decision that sacrifices short-term profitability for the sake of adhering to those values.

(…) Here are some things that companies can do to help their employees, small suppliers, health care providers, and communities.

Employees. What companies do to help their laid-off employees  — above and beyond what is required or expected — will be remembered and repaid in increased loyalty, higher productivity, and a lasting reputational benefit for many years to come.

Continuing to pay wages, even at less than full pay, is one option. Walmart, Microsoft, Apple, and Lyft have all made commitments to continue payments to hourly workers for at least the first two weeks of lockdown. This is essential not only as a matter of corporate responsibility; it will also substantially reduce the costs of rehiring employees when the economy returns to normal.

Lending money to employees is another option. Left on their own, many employees will turn to the exorbitant charges of credit card debt and payday lenders who will levy a 20%-plus interest rate at a time when corporations can borrow at 2% or 3%. That difference in interest rates can be the difference between bankruptcy and economic survival. Corporations should use their corporate credit and collateral to arrange low- or no-interest loans to their employees. They should calculate employees’ take-home pay after payroll deductions, and ask their banks to make loans available equal to a month of net wages at 3% interest, guaranteed by the corporation. Employees can pay the loans back over the next year out of their salaries when they return to work.

In all likelihood, very few of a company’s employees will actually require medical care, but if they have no insurance, that too can bankrupt them. Companies should offer to cover the medical expenses of all non-insured employees — probably somewhere between 2% and 5% will actually incur significant bills, and companies can negotiate with their insurer an additional premium to cover them. Sadly, employees may also need help to cover funeral costs for the few who succumb.

Small suppliers. Companies should offer advance payments to their small suppliers, giving them cash today for goods that they will need when they return to production. It’s the corporate equivalent of buying gift cards to keep your local store in business.

Health care providers. Some parts of the world face severe shortages in basic medical supplies, but as a global company you have access to resources everywhere. The need for masks in China and South Korea has waned while it is still growing in the United States and Europe. Companies should purchase and ship supplies from where they are available to where they are needed. They should tap their inventory of whatever they have that might help, send it where it will do the most good, and take the loss.

Communities. Major corporations should use their foundations to aid food pantries, free clinics, and other nonprofits in addressing immediate needs of the communities where they have operations.

Pour rappel, j’ai publié récemment un billet de blogue sur Contact partageant mes réflexions sur les liens entre COVID-19, entreprises et RSE : « La RSE à l’heure de la COVID-19 » (26 mars 2020).

À la prochaine…

Comme d’autres pays, l’Espagne vient de modifier son droit des sociétés par actions pour donner plus de souplesse notamment dans la tenue des assemblées annuelles : « Coronavirus Spain · Royal Decree-Law 8/2020 of 17 March – Measures Applicable to Companies » (20 mars 2020).

Extrait :

On 18 March, Royal Decree-Law 8/2020, of 17 March, on urgent, extraordinary measures to deal with the economic and social impact of Covid-19 was published. Below we briefly explain the extraordinary measures applicable to companies and other legal persons in private law (associations, cooperatives and foundations).

These measures can be broken down into three categories depending on their scope of application: (i) measures relative to the adoption of resolutions, (ii) measures relative to the annual accounts and (iii) other measures.

i. Measures relative to the adoption of resolutions:

Although no specific regulation exists in the bylaws, during the state of alarm the following is permitted:

• The holding of meetings by videoconference of:

 -The General Shareholders’ Meeting and the governing body of mercantile companies;
 -The General Assembly and the Governing Board (Junta Directiva) of associations;
 -The Governing Council (Consejo Rector) of cooperatives;
 -The Governing Council (Patronato) of foundations;
 -The delegate committees, whether obligatory or voluntary, that the above bodies have established.

The videoconference must be carried out by some means that ensures the authenticity and the real-time connection with image and sound of those in attendance.

• The adoption of resolutions by the abovementioned bodies by written vote and without a meeting, if so decided by the President or when requested by at least two of the members of the body.

ii. Measures relative to the annual accounts:

• The term for the governing or management body to prepare the annual accounts is suspended. From the date on which the state of alarm ends, a new term of three months is granted for their preparation.

• If the annual accounts have already been prepared and when the audit of said accounts is mandatory, entities will have two months from the end of the state of alarm to audit the accounts.

• The meeting of the Ordinary General Shareholders’ Meeting to approve the annual accounts shall be held obligatorily within three months of the end of the period in which to prepare the accounts. Consequently, the General Shareholders’ Meeting must meet within six months of the end of the state of alarm to approve the annual accounts.

• If the call to a meeting of the General Shareholders’ Meeting was published prior to the declaration of the state of alarm, and the meeting should be held after said declaration, the governing body may choose between the following two options (i) change the place and time of the meeting or (ii) revoke the resolution to call the meeting; in either case, it must be done at least 48 hours before the meeting is held. Furthermore, if the call to a meeting is revoked, a new call must be made within a month of the end of the state of alarm.

À la prochaine…

En ce début d’avril 2020, le Forum Économique Mondial vient de publier une déclaration sur les principes parties prenantes qu’il entend promouvoir durant la crise du COVID-19 : « Stakeholder Principles in the COVID Era ».

Extrait :

To this end, we endorse the following Stakeholder Principles in the COVID Era:

− To employees, our principle is to keep you safe: We will continue do everything we can to protect your workplace, and to help you to adapt to the new working conditions

− To our ecosystem of suppliers and customers, our principle is to secure our shared business continuity: We will continue to work to keep supply chains open and integrate you into our business response

− To our end consumers, our principle is to maintain fair prices and commercial terms for essential supplies

− To governments and society, our principle is to offer our full support: We stand ready and will continue to complement public action with our resources, capabilities and know-how

− To our shareholders, our principle remains the long-term viability of the company and its potential to create sustained value

Finally, we also maintain the principle that we must continue our sustainability efforts unabated, to bring our world closer to achieving shared goals, including the Paris climate agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda. We will continue to focus on those long-term goals.

À la prochaine…

Très intéressant article du Financial Times au titre très clair : « Investors and politicians demand coronavirus pay cuts » (4 avril 2020). L’Angleterre démontre un changement de perspective dans le domaine de la rémunération de la haute direction… Un exemple à suivre ?

À la prochaine…

L’influent ICGN a pris récemment position sur les conséquences du COVID-19 pour la gouvernance d’entreprise, sachant que ce réseau international fait de cette pandémie un risque systémique (rien de moins !). Vous pourrez lire les préconisation de l’ICGN dans le document suivant : ICGN Viewpoint, « Coronavirus as a new systemic risk: implications for corporate governance and investor stewardship », 12 mars 2020.

Extrait concernant les investisseurs

Despite these negative economic events investors should avoid focusing on the crisis in terms of its short-term shareholder value implications. It is here where a long-term perspective, and perhaps a grounding ethics and values more generally, should also guide investor responses. In the language of modern finance, this may be less an opportunity for investors seeking alpha generation in individual companies than it is a question of addressing ‘beta’ issues—the volatility/stability of the markets and financial system as a whole. This may be fiendishly complicated, but an important guiding principle for investors relates to their fundamental fiduciary duty of care to their beneficiaries. This confirms the importance of taking a long-term perspective, since most ICGN Members, and large institutional investors more generally, are managing assets for pension plans or retirement saving plans, where the investment horizon is intrinsically long-term, or in theory infinite.

It is beyond the scope of this Viewpoint to suggest specific investment or trading strategies for investors in addressing the impacts of COVID-19. There is no generic solution. These will differ depending on individual investor mandates and beneficiary requirements. But from the perspective of investor stewardship and fiduciary duty — and consistent with ICGN’s Global Stewardship Principles and Policy Priorities3 — it is fair to suggest that in reacting to this crisis investors should generally seek to maintain an approach that promotes long-term investment horizons and sustainable value creation for individual companies and markets.

As a practical matter this requires investors to appreciate that companies will be facing difficult questions in response to the impacts of COVID-19. The first priority for managers and boards will be to ensure the company’s own financial sustainability. Investors must also understand that capital allocation questions may surface where compromise is required. Companies may have to choose between cutting dividend payments, cutting capital spending or cutting costs, possibly leading to redundancies. Investors should demonstrate support for companies as they navigate potentially acute financial threats and market pressures. Investors should also avoid encouraging companies to undertake undue risks that might provide a short-term investor benefit but could also jeopardise a company’s financial stability or the sustainability of its business model. This reflects not only some level of enlightened self-interest, but also the moral imperative to contribute positively to the broader threats to public health and social stability.

À la prochaine…