actualités internationales

Dans le quotidien Le Monde, Mme Beyneix propose une tribune portant sue droit de la RSE : « Le durcissement du droit de la RSE oblige les sociétés à être vraiment des entreprises citoyennes » (25 octobre 2023).

Extrait :

Le droit semble enfin passer de l’incitation à la contrainte pour obliger les entreprises à prendre fait et cause pour la protection de l’environnement. Il était temps car le nombre d’engagements volontaire (« say on climate ») au sein des sociétés cotées a régressé en 2023. En préconisant une simple « présentation » de la stratégie climatique aux assemblées générales d’actionnaires, le code AFEP-Medef semble bien timoré. La loi sur l’industrie verte du 25 octobre 2023 a finalement renoncé à imposer un vote, même consultatif, de l’assemblée générale des actionnaires sur la stratégie climatique (« say on climate »). Enfin, les enjeux de la RSE ne sont guère évoqués par les membres du conseil d’administration au sein des sociétés cotées. Selon une étude de 2021, 49 % d’entre eux disent que le réchauffement climatique n’est pas (ou n’est qu’à la marge) intégré dans les décisions d’investissement de leur entreprise – il n’y est complètement intégré que pour 11 % d’entre eux (« Changing the Climate in the Boardroom », rapport de Heidrick & Struggles et de l’Insead, décembre 2021). La Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) du 14 décembre 2022, qui doit être transposée en droit français d’ici au 9 décembre 2023 et qui entrera en vigueur en 2024, a pour but d’améliorer la qualité de l’information relative aux droits environnementaux, aux droits sociaux et aux droits de l’homme au sein des entreprises et de toutes les parties prenantes.

À la prochaine…

Intéressant cas australien sur l’activisme actionnarial dont a été victime AGL Ltd., activisme qui a eu des conséquences ! « Billionaire’s AGL Win Jolts Australia Awake to Climate Activism » (BNN Bloomberg, 30 mai 2022).

Extrait

An Australian billionaire’s success in forcing AGL Ltd. to scrap a breakup plan and its top executives to step down may shake the status quo between shareholders and companies in the region, particularly on climate issues.

Atlassian Corp. founder Mike Cannon-Brookes halted demerger plans by AGL — Australia’s biggest producer of scope one greenhouse gases — that would have allowed it to run coal-fired power plants for another two decades. In doing so, he joined a growing number of activist shareholders including Exxon Mobil Corp. investor Engine No. 1 to have successfully fought big polluters using agitator tactics.

À la prochaine…

Quelle belle question que se pose le Wall Street Journal ! Vous pourrez lire cet article dans le Wall Street Journal du 25 avril 2022 (ici).

Résumé

How should a company’s board of directors think about sustainability? And what role should the CEO and other top executives play?

Those questions were discussed at the WSJ Pro Sustainable Business Forum by AnnaMaria DeSalva, global chairman and chief executive officer of consultants Hill+Knowlton Strategies and vice chairman of the board at XPO Logistics; Nancy Pfund, founder and managing partner at venture-capital firm DBL Partners; and Harmit Singh, executive vice president and chief financial officer at Levi Strauss & Co. The discussion was moderated by The Wall Street Journal’s Nicholas Elliott, head of professional products innovation and strategy, and Ed Ballard, bureau chief, WSJ Pro Sustainable Business. Here are edited excerpts of their conversation.

À la prochaine…

Un peu ancienne, cette tribune de Jean Peyrelevade mérite à coup sûr dêtre lu : « L’inéluctable retour de l’Etat dans nos économies » (Les Échos.fr, 29 octobre 2019).

Extrait :

Une thèse se répand avec de plus en plus de force : les grandes entreprises capitalistes joueraient un rôle sans cesse accru dans le fonctionnement global de nos sociétés, au point de dépouiller les Etats d’une partie significative de leurs prérogatives.

Les Gafa américaines (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple) fournissent la contribution la plus sérieuse au caractère convaincant de cette théorie. Elles élaborent leurs propres lois de fonctionnement et donc, pour partie, leur propre droit, accumulent les données personnelles concernant chacun d’entre nous et en tirent profit en les vendant, échappent à la fiscalité en optimisant à l’échelle mondiale leurs implantations et leurs flux de facturations internes. Grâce au rendement croissant de leurs activités, elles exercent un effet de domination sur leurs marchés, rachètent systématiquement leurs concurrents potentiels ou, à défaut, s’efforcent de les faire disparaître. Enfin l’arrivée éventuelle du libra, la monnaie privée inventée par Mark Zuckerberg, constituerait, si elle voyait le jour, une atteinte directe à la souveraineté des Etats.

Cette menace est à coup sûr bien présente. Je ne crois pas, cependant, qu’elle puisse vraiment se concrétiser. Les Gafa chinois (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, Xiaomi), sans avoir encore la puissance de leurs rivales américaines, s’en rapprochent de plus en plus. Or, loin de faire de l’ombre à l’Etat chinois, elles sont devenues un élément clef de sa stratégie. Rappelons au passage que la Chine représente environ 20 % de la population de la planète et 15 % des richesses produites chaque année dans le monde. L’Etat-parti y exerce un pouvoir total pour ne pas dire totalitaire et toutes les entreprises, quel que soit leur statut public ou privé, y sont au service d’une politique clairement nationaliste.

(…)

Evolution du capitalisme

Un mouvement plus doux est à l’oeuvre au sein du capitalisme traditionnel des pays occidentaux. Les entreprises, jusqu’ici soumises aux marchés financiers et aux désirs de rendement de leurs actionnaires, se détachent soudain, au moins en paroles, du modèle qui les gouvernait. Milton Friedman n’est plus à la mode, et l’entreprise doit désormais se préoccuper de l’intérêt général, sinon l’incarner. La loi Pacte, en France, les oblige depuis mai dernier à intégrer les enjeux sociaux et environnementaux dans leur objet social et les encourage à définir leur raison d’être, voire même leur mission, ce qui donne un parfum de transcendance à leur activité.

Ces belles prises de position seraient-elles le signe d’un recul des Etats, voire de leur impuissance ? Je n’y crois pas une seconde. Elles marquent plutôt la prise de conscience par les chefs des grandes entreprises que le capitalisme traditionnel, dont ils ont tiré grand profit, est critiqué de maintes parts. Toutes ces bonnes intentions sont en fait la marque d’une faiblesse reconnue, et non d’une prise de pouvoir sur la société. Leur lobby, pour demeurer efficace, doit devenir plus vertueux.

À la prochaine…

L’University of Oxford, l’University of California, Berkeley, BrightHouse, la British Academy, Federated Hermes EOS et Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz ont publié un excellent rapport dont je recommande fortement la lecture : « Enacting Purpose within the Modern Corporation: A Framework for Boards of Directors ». En plus de revenir sur le purpose, ce rapport offre une distinction entre des notions souvent confondues…

Extrait

• « Purpose. Purpose States « Why » an Organization Exists: As Professor Colin Mayer, one of our co-chairs puts it, “the purpose of business is to solve the problems of people and planet profitably, and not profit from causing problems”. This statement deliberately leaves open the question of the specific purpose of each organisation, but does deliberately and carefully demand a reason for existence alongside the pursuit of profit. Purpose sets out the reasons why the organisation conducts its various activities, articulating what societal challenge, need or benefit the organisation seeks to address. This sets it apart from the three other important concepts for organisations below. Once this purpose has been debated and formally agreed, the board should not only publish it but also ensure that its internal governance and external reporting evaluate its activities and the outcomes generated against its stated purpose.

• « Values. Values Describe « How » the Organization Behaves : These are often short and punchy bullet points, detailing specific expectations and principles of interaction within the organisation’s internal or external operating environment. More importantly they should be a call to action. These values should inform and guide the specific day to day behaviours and decisions taken by every member of the organisation. They should be articulated in a way that the intent is clearly understood, and the board of directors should ensure that the organisational culture embraces these values and enables them to be put into practice by every member of the organisation. Boards of directors also need to ensure that employees are empowered to ensure that key suppliers act in compliance with the organization’s stated values.

• « Mission. Mission Sets Out « What » the Organisation Does: It captures the day to day activities of the organisation, defining quite literally what business it is in. It is directly linked to the strategy of the organisation and is underpinned by the values deployed to deliver the mission. It is very practical and descriptive in nature. Mission therefore sets out specifically and practically what the organisation aims to do in pursuit of its stated purpose. Mission statements provide an opportunity for boards of directors to set out what they specifically intend to deliver to each of the organisation’s different key stakeholder groups.

• « Vision. Vision Describes « Where » the Organisation Intends to Have Impact: It describes the outcome that the organisation wants to see from the successful delivery of its stated purpose. Put simply, vision captures what success looks like. By its nature, vision statements are aspirational, large scale and usually long-term.

À la prochaine…

Article amenant à réfléchir dans le Wall Street Journal de Alexander William Salter : « Profit Keeps Corporate Leaders Honest » (8 décembre 2020).

Extrait :

(…) As National Review’s Andrew Stuttaford notes, this vision of wide-ranging corporate beneficence introduces a host of principal-agent problems in ordinary business decision-making. Profit is a concrete and clarifying metric that allows shareholders—owners—to hold executives accountable for their performance. Adding multiple goals not related to profit introduces needless confusion.

This is no accident. Stakeholder capitalism is used as a way to obfuscate what counts as success in business. By focusing less on profits and more on vague social values, “enlightened” executives will find it easier to avoid accountability even as they squander business resources. While trying to make business about “social justice” is always concerning, the contemporary conjunction of stakeholder theory and woke capitalism makes for an especially dangerous and accountability-thwarting combination.

Better to avoid it. Since profits result from increasing revenue and cutting costs, businesses that put profits first have to work hard to give customers more while using less. In short, profits are an elegant and parsimonious way of promoting efficiency within a business as well as society at large.

Stakeholder capitalism ruptures this process. When other goals compete with the mandate to maximize returns, the feedback loop created by profits gets weaker. Lower revenues and higher costs no longer give owners and corporate officers the information they need to make hard choices. The result is increased internal conflict: Owners will jockey among themselves for the power to determine the corporation’s priorities. Corporate officers will be harder to discipline, because poor performance can always be justified by pointing to broader social goals. And the more these broader goals take precedence, the more businesses will use up scarce resources to deliver diminishing benefits to customers.

Given these problems, why would prominent corporations sign on to the Great Reset? Some people within the organizations may simply prefer that firms take politically correct stances and don’t consider the cost. Others may think it looks good in a press release and will never go anywhere. A third group may aspire to jobs in government and see championing corporate social responsibility as a bridge.

Finally, there are those who think they can benefit personally from the reduced corporate efficiency. As businesses redirect cash flow from profit-directed uses to social priorities, lucrative positions of management, consulting, oversight and more will have to be created. They’ll fill them. This is rent-seeking, enabled by the growing confluence of business and government, and enhanced by contemporary social pieties.

The World Economic Forum loves to discuss the need for “global governance,” but the Davos crowd knows this type of social engineering can’t be achieved by governments alone. Multinational corporations are increasingly independent authorities. Their cooperation is essential.

Endorsements of stakeholder capitalism should be viewed against this backdrop. If it is widely adopted, the predictable result will be atrophied corporate responsibility as business leaders behave increasingly like global bureaucrats. Stakeholder capitalism is today a means of acquiring corporate buy-in to the Davos political agenda.

Friedman knew well the kind of corporate officer who protests too much against profit-seeking: “Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.” He was right then, and he is right now. We should reject stakeholder capitalism as a misconception of the vocation of business. If we don’t defend shareholder capitalism vigorously, we’ll see firsthand that there are many more insidious things businesses can pursue than profit.

À la prochaine…

Dans BoardAgenda, Gavin Hinks propose une solution pour que les parties prenantes soient mieux pris en compte : la création d’un comité social et éthique (déjà en fonction en Afrique du Sud) : « Companies ‘need new mechanism’ to integrate stakeholder interests » (4 septembre 2020).

Extrait :

While section 172 of the Companies Act—the key law governing directors’ duties—has been sufficiently flexible to enable companies to re-align themselves with stakeholders so far, it provides no guarantee they will maintain that disposition.

In their recent paper, MacNeil and Esser argue more regulation is needed and in particular a mandatory committee drawing key stakeholder issues to the board and then reporting on them to shareholders.

Known as the “social and ethics committee” in South Africa, a similar mandatory committee in the UK considering ESG (environmental, social and governance) issues “will provide a level playing field for stakeholder engagement,” write MacNeil and Esser.

Recent evidence, they concede, suggests the committees in South Africa are still evolving, but there are advantages, with the committee “uniquely placed with direct access to the main board and a mandate to reach into the depths of the business”.

“As a result, it is capable of having a strong influence on the way a company heads down the path of sustained value creation.”

Will stakeholderism stick?

The issue of making “stakeholder” capitalism stick has vexed others too. The issue was a dominant agenda item at the World Economic Forum’s Davos conference this year, as well as becoming a key element in the presidential campaign of Democrat candidate Joe Biden.

Others worry that stakeholderism is a talking point only, prompting no real change in some companies. Indeed, when academics examined the practical policy outcomes from the now famous 2019 pledge by the Business Roundtable—a group of US multinationals—to shift their focus from shareholders to stakeholders, they found the companies wanting.

In the UK, at least, some are taking the issue very seriously. The Institute of Directors recently launched a new governance centre with its first agenda item being how stakeholderism can be integrated into current governance structures.

Further back the Royal Academy, an august British research institution, issued its own principles for becoming a “purposeful business”, another idea closely associated with stakeholderism.

The stakeholder debate has a long way to run. If the idea is to gain traction it will undoubtedly need a stronger commitment in regulation than it currently has, or companies could easily wander from the path. That may depend on public demand and political will. But Esser and MacNeil may have at least indicated one way forward.

À la prochaine…