actualités internationales

Émission intéressante dans Le temps du débat (animé par par Raphaël Bourgois) offerte par France Culture le 5 décembre 2020 : « Tech For Good : les entreprises peuvent-elles travailler au bien commun ? ».

Résumé

L’Appel Tech for Good a été signé lundi 30 novembre, aboutissement d’une initiative lancée en mai 2018 par Emmanuel Macron, lorsqu’il invitait à l’Elysée les géants du numérique. Deux ans et demi plus tard l’Appel Tech for Good a été signé par 75 grandes entreprises qui assurent de leur engagement à « mettre la technologie au service du progrès humain ». On notera tout de même l’absence de deux entreprises de taille : les américains Amazon et Apple ont pour l’instant refusé de s’associer à cette initiative pourtant non contraignante.

A ce volet, qu’on pourrait dire éthique, il faut ajouter un volet réglementaire au niveau européen : le 15 décembre la Commission devrait présenter le Digital Services Act et le Digital Market Act. Son objectif : mieux définir la responsabilité des plateformes et des réseaux, mais aussi dépoussiérer le droit de la concurrence, empêcher les abus de position dominante et permettre à des alternatives européennes d’émerger.

Il y aurait donc un mouvement général vers un meilleur encadrement des entreprises, leur responsabilisation sur des enjeux comme l’environnement, la diversité, le partage de la valeur ou le partage du pouvoir. Et les entreprises dites de la Tech en seraient le fer de lance. L’économie de demain sera écologique et sociale ou ne sera pas disent les uns… tout ceci n’est green ou social washing rétorquent les autres. Mais surtout, la question qui reste entière c’est de savoir qui dit le « good », de quel « bien » parle-t-on, qui et comment le mesure-t-on ?

À la prochaine…

Excellente lecture ce matin de ce billet du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance : « Legal Liability for ESG Disclosures » (de Connor Kuratek, Joseph A. Hall et Betty M. Huber, 3 août 2020). Dans cette publication, vous trouverez non seulement une belle synthèse des référentiels actuels, mais aussi une réflexion sur les conséquences attachées à la mauvaise divulgation d »information.

Extrait :

3. Legal Liability Considerations

Notwithstanding the SEC’s position that it will not—at this time—mandate additional climate or ESG disclosure, companies must still be mindful of the potential legal risks and litigation costs that may be associated with making these disclosures voluntarily. Although the federal securities laws generally do not require the disclosure of ESG data except in limited instances, potential liability may arise from making ESG-related disclosures that are materially misleading or false. In addition, the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws apply not only to SEC filings, but also extend to less formal communications such as citizenship reports, press releases and websites. Lastly, in addition to potential liability stemming from federal securities laws, potential liability could arise from other statutes and regulations, such as federal and state consumer protection laws.

A. Federal Securities Laws

When they arise, claims relating to a company’s ESG disclosure are generally brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which covers material misstatements and omissions in securities offering documents, and under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5, the principal anti-fraud provisions. To date, claims brought under these two provisions have been largely unsuccessful. Cases that have survived the motion to dismiss include statements relating to cybersecurity (which many commentators view as falling under the “S” or “G” of ESG), an oil company’s safety measures, mine safety and internal financial integrity controls found in the company’s sustainability report, website, SEC filings and/or investor presentations.

Interestingly, courts have also found in favor of plaintiffs alleging rule 10b-5 violations for statements made in a company’s code of conduct. Complaints, many of which have been brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, have included allegations that a company’s code of conduct falsely represented company standards or that public comments made by the company about the code misleadingly publicized the quality of ethical controls. In some circumstances, courts found that statements about or within such codes were more than merely aspirational and did not constitute inactionable puffery, including when viewed in context rather than in isolation. In late March 2020, for example, a company settled a securities class action for $240 million alleging that statements in its code of conduct and code of ethics were false or misleading. The facts of this case were unusual, but it is likely that securities plaintiffs will seek to leverage rulings from the court in that class action to pursue other cases involving code of conducts or ethics. It remains to be seen whether any of these code of conduct case holdings may in the future be extended to apply to cases alleging 10b-5 violations for statements made in a company’s ESG reports.

B. State Consumer Protection Laws

Claims under U.S. state consumer protection laws have been of limited success. Nevertheless, many cases have been appealed which has resulted in additional litigation costs in circumstances where these costs were already significant even when not appealed. Recent claims that were appealed, even if ultimately failed, and which survived the motion to dismiss stage, include claims brought under California’s consumer protection laws alleging that human right commitments on a company website imposed on such company a duty to disclose on its labels that it or its supply chain could be employing child and/or forced labor. Cases have also been dismissed for lack of causal connection between alleged violation and economic injury including a claim under California, Florida and Texas consumer protection statutes alleging that the operator of several theme parks failed to disclose material facts about its treatment of orcas. The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but was dismissed for failure to show a causal connection between the alleged violation and the plaintiffs’ economic injury.

Overall, successful litigation relating to ESG disclosures is still very much a rare occurrence. However, this does not mean that companies are therefore insulated from litigation risk. Although perhaps not ultimately successful, merely having a claim initiated against a company can have serious reputational damage and may cause a company to incur significant litigation and public relations costs. The next section outlines three key takeaways and related best practices aimed to reduce such risks.

C. Practical Recommendations

Although the above makes clear that ESG litigation to date is often unsuccessful, companies should still be wary of the significant impacts of such litigation. The following outlines some key takeaways and best practices for companies seeking to continue ESG disclosure while simultaneously limiting litigation risk.

Key Takeaway 1: Disclaimers are Critical

As more and more companies publish reports on ESG performance, like disclaimers on forward-looking statements in SEC filings, companies are beginning to include disclaimers in their ESG reports, which disclaimers may or may not provide protection against potential litigation risks. In many cases, the language found in ESG reports will mirror language in SEC filings, though some companies have begun to tailor them specifically to the content of their ESG reports.

From our limited survey of companies across four industries that receive significant pressure to publish such reports—Banking, Chemicals, Oil & Gas and Utilities & Power—the following preliminary conclusions were drawn:

• All companies surveyed across all sectors have some type of “forward-looking statement” disclaimer in their SEC filings; however, these were generic disclaimers that were not tailored to ESG-specific facts and topics or relating to items discussed in their ESG reports.
• Most companies had some sort of disclaimer in their Sustainability Report, although some were lacking one altogether. Very few companies had disclaimers that were tailored to the specific facts and topics discussed in their ESG reports:
  • In the Oil & Gas industry, one company surveyed had a tailored ESG disclaimer in its ESG Report; all others had either the same disclaimer as in SEC filings or a shortened version that was generally very broad.
  • In the Banking industry, two companies lacked disclaimers altogether, but the rest had either their SEC disclaimer or a shortened version.
  • In the Utilities & Power industry, one company had no disclaimer, but the rest had general disclaimers.
  • In the Chemicals industry, three companies had no disclaimer in their reports, but the rest had shortened general disclaimers.
• There seems to be a disconnect between the disclaimers being used in SEC filings and those found in ESG In particular, ESG disclaimers are generally shorter and will often reference more detailed disclaimers found in SEC filings.

Best Practices: When drafting ESG disclaimers, companies should:

• Draft ESG disclaimers carefully. ESG disclaimers should be drafted in a way that explicitly covers ESG data so as to reduce the risk of litigation.
• State that ESG data is non-GAAP. ESG data is usually non-GAAP and non-audited; this should be made clear in any ESG Disclaimer.
• Have consistent disclaimers. Although disclaimers in SEC filings appear to be more detailed, disclaimers across all company documents that reference ESG data should specifically address these issues. As more companies start incorporating ESG into their proxies and other SEC filings, it is important that all language follows through.

Key Takeaway 2: ESG Reporting Can Pose Risks to a Company

This article highlighted the clear risks associated with inattentive ESG disclosure: potential litigation; bad publicity; and significant costs, among other things.

Best Practices: Companies should ensure statements in ESG reports are supported by fact or data and should limit overly aspirational statements. Representations made in ESG Reports may become actionable, so companies should disclose only what is accurate and relevant to the company.

Striking the right balance may be difficult; many companies will under-disclose, while others may over-disclose. Companies should therefore only disclose what is accurate and relevant to the company. The US Chamber of Commerce, in their ESG Reporting Best Practices, suggests things in a similar vein: do not include ESG metrics into SEC filings; only disclose what is useful to the intended audience and ensure that ESG reports are subject to a “rigorous internal review process to ensure accuracy and completeness.”

Key Takeaway 3: ESG Reporting Can Also be Beneficial for Companies

The threat of potential litigation should not dissuade companies from disclosing sustainability frameworks and metrics. Not only are companies facing investor pressure to disclose ESG metrics, but such disclosure may also incentivize companies to improve internal risk management policies, internal and external decisional-making capabilities and may increase legal and protection when there is a duty to disclose. Moreover, as ESG investing becomes increasingly popular, it is important for companies to be aware that robust ESG reporting, which in turn may lead to stronger ESG ratings, can be useful in attracting potential investors.

Best Practices: Companies should try to understand key ESG rating and reporting methodologies and how they match their company profile.

The growing interest in ESG metrics has meant that the number of ESG raters has grown exponentially, making it difficult for many companies to understand how each “rater” calculates a company’s ESG score. Resources such as the Better Alignment Project run by the Corporate Reporting Dialogue, strive to better align corporate reporting requirements and can give companies an idea of how frameworks such as CDP, CDSB, GRI and SASB overlap. By understanding the current ESG market raters and methodologies, companies will be able to better align their ESG disclosures with them. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce report noted above also suggests that companies should “engage with their peers and investors to shape ESG disclosure frameworks and standards that are fit for their purpose.”

À la prochaine…

L’Assemblé nationale vient de publier le rapport d’information qui conclut travaux d’une mission d’information relative à l’activisme actionnarial (rapport no 2287 du 2 octobre 2019).

Bilan du rapport

Né et encore très concentré aux États-Unis, le phénomène de l’activisme actionnarial se développe rapidement en Europe et en France. Il s’agit d’une nouvelle réalité de la vie des affaires, souvent très médiatisée.

Il est sain qu’un actionnaire soit actif dans la vie d’une entreprise. De même, un activiste peut être utile à l’entreprise. L’essentiel n’est finalement pas de différencier les actionnaires actifs des activistes, mais bien d’identifier les formes excessives de comportements activistes.

L’activisme désigne le comportement d’un actionnaire souvent minoritaire, qui fait campagne pour exiger d’une société cotée du changement, en allant au-delà du dialogue bilatéral avec la société, et en prenant parfois position publiquement.

Les fonds activistes sont-ils en train de « secouer le cocotier » du capitalisme continental ?

Les rapporteurs ont rencontré les principaux acteurs du marché (entreprises, fonds activistes, conseils, régulateurs, etc.), à Paris et à New York, pour mieux comprendre un phénomène complexe, multiforme et encore mal appréhendé.

Ils ont notamment été conduits à opérer une distinction importante entre l’activisme « long », où les fonds prennent des participations dans des entreprises dont ils souhaitent voir la valeur augmenter à court terme ou sur une durée plus longue ; et les activistes « courts », qui vendent « à découvert » les titres d’une société pour parier sur la baisse de son cours de bourse. Dans les deux cas, ils distinguent les comportements sains et normaux des abus parfois nuisibles.

Le rapport formule treize recommandations afin de mieux encadrer les comportements activistes, sans nuire à la compétitivité de la place de Paris, en articulant le recours à l’initiative privée, au droit souple et l’évolution des règles quand cela est nécessaire.

Ces recommandations visent à :

• renforcer la transparence du marché et notamment la connaissance par les entreprises de leur actionnariat ;

• réduire l’asymétrie de communication et d’information entre fonds activistes et sociétés cotées ;

• encadrer plus étroitement la vente à découvert, et encourager la transparence sur le marché du prêt-emprunt de titres ;

• rapprocher le temps de la régulation du temps du marché, notamment en donnant plus de moyens d’action au régulateur financier, l’AMF.

Le rapport souligne enfin l’importance pour les entreprises d’être activiste pour elles-mêmes en mettant en place une gouvernance solide ; en favorisant un dialogue actionnarial plus intense ; et en prenant mieux en compte les « parties prenantes » et les enjeux sociaux et environnementaux dans la recherche de la rentabilité.

À la prochaine…

Dans le Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, un article intéressant est proposé qui porte sur des propositions en matière de rémunération des dirigeants : « Pay for Performance-Mirage? » (par Cydney Posne, 3 octobre 2019).

Pour en savoir plus : ici

Extrait :

Yes, it can be, according to the Executive Director of the Council of Institutional Investors, in announcing CII’s new policy on executive comp.

Among other ideas, the new policy calls for plans with less complexity (who can’t get behind that?), longer performance periods for incentive pay, hold-beyond-departure requirements for shares held by executives, more discretion to invoke clawbacks, rank-and-file pay as a valid reference marker for executive pay, heightened scrutiny of pay-for-performance plans and perhaps greater reliance on—of all things—fixed pay. It’s back to the future for compensation!

Il est intéressant de noter que le CII indique sur le long terme que : « Executive compensation should be designed to attract, retain and incentivize executive talent for the purpose of building long-term shareholder value and promoting long-term strategic thinking. CII considers “the long-term” to be at least five years. Executive rewards should be generally commensurate with long-term return to the company’s owners. Rewarding executives based on broad measures of performance may be appropriate in cases where doing so logically contributes to the company’s long-term shareholder return ».

À la prochaine…

Selon le Wall Street Journal : « More Companies Are Making Noise About ESG » (4 octobre 2019). Voilà une bonne nouvelle pour la RSE !

Extrait :

Big U.S. companies are increasingly talking up environmental, social and governance factors on earnings calls—and betting that investors increasingly concerned with social responsibility will reward them for it.

Twenty-four companies in S&P 500 mentioned the acronym “ESG” on earnings conference calls between June 15 and Sept. 14, double the number that cited the term in the first quarter, according to FactSet.

That marks a huge increase from just two years earlier, when only two companies referred to ESG in the second quarter of 2017. But it still represents only 5% of the companies in the index.

The financial sector had the highest number of companies mentioning ESG, followed by the real-estate and utilities sectors.

À la prochaine…