actualités internationales

actualités internationales Gouvernance Normes d'encadrement normes de droit objectifs de l'entreprise Responsabilité sociale des entreprises Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale

50 years later, Milton Friedman’s shareholder doctrine is dead

Belle tribune dans Fortune de MM. Colin Mayer, Leo Strine Jr et Jaap Winter au titre clair : « 50 years later, Milton Friedman’s shareholder doctrine is dead » (13 septembre 2020).

Extrait :

Fifty years ago, Milton Friedman in the New York Times magazine proclaimed that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Directors have the duty to do what is in the interests of their masters, the shareholders, to make as much profit as possible. Friedman was hostile to the New Deal and European models of social democracy and urged business to use its muscle to reduce the effectiveness of unions, blunt environmental and consumer protection measures, and defang antitrust law. He sought to reduce consideration of human concerns within the corporate boardroom and legal requirements on business to treat workers, consumers, and society fairly. 

Over the last 50 years, Friedman’s views became increasingly influential in the U.S. As a result, the power of the stock market and wealthy elites soared and consideration of the interests of workers, the environment, and consumers declined. Profound economic insecurity and inequality, a slow response to climate change, and undermined public institutions resulted. Using their wealth and power in the pursuit of profits, corporations led the way in loosening the external constraints that protected workers and other stakeholders against overreaching.

Under the dominant Friedman paradigm, corporations were constantly harried by all the mechanisms that shareholders had available—shareholder resolutions, takeovers, and hedge fund activism—to keep them narrowly focused on stockholder returns. And pushed by institutional investors, executive remuneration systems were increasingly focused on total stock returns. By making corporations the playthings of the stock market, it became steadily harder for corporations to operate in an enlightened way that reflected the real interests of their human investors in sustainable growth, fair treatment of workers, and protection of the environment.

Half a century later, it is clear that this narrow, stockholder-centered view of corporations has cost society severely. Well before the COVID-19 pandemic, the single-minded focus of business on profits was criticized for causing the degradation of nature and biodiversity, contributing to global warming, stagnating wages, and exacerbating economic inequality. The result is best exemplified by the drastic shift in gain sharing away from workers toward corporate elites, with stockholders and top management eating more of the economic pie.

Corporate America understood the threat that this way of thinking was having on the social compact and reacted through the 2019 corporate purpose statement of the Business Roundtable, emphasizing responsibility to stakeholders as well as shareholders. But the failure of many of the signatories to protect their stakeholders during the coronavirus pandemic has prompted cynicism about the original intentions of those signing the document, as well as their subsequent actions.

Stockholder advocates are right when then they claim that purpose statements on their own achieve little: Calling for corporate executives who answer to only one powerful constituency—stockholders in the form of highly assertive institutional investors—and have no legal duty to other stakeholders to run their corporations in a way that is fair to all stakeholders is not only ineffectual, it is naive and intellectually incoherent.

What is required is to match commitment to broader responsibility of corporations to society with a power structure that backs it up. That is what has been missing. Corporate law in the U.S. leaves it to directors and managers subject to potent stockholder power to give weight to other stakeholders. In principle, corporations can commit to purposes beyond profit and their stakeholders, but only if their powerful investors allow them to do so. Ultimately, because the law is permissive, it is in fact highly restrictive of corporations acting fairly for all their stakeholders because it hands authority to investors and financial markets for corporate control.

Absent any effective mechanism for encouraging adherence to the Roundtable statement, the system is stacked against those who attempt to do so. There is no requirement on corporations to look after their stakeholders and for the most part they do not, because if they did, they would incur the wrath of their shareholders. That was illustrated all too clearly by the immediate knee-jerk response of the Council of Institutional Investors to the Roundtable declaration last year, which expressed its disapproval by stating that the Roundtable had failed to recognize shareholders as owners as well as providers of capital, and that “accountability to everyone means accountability to no one.” 

If the Roundtable is serious about shifting from shareholder primacy to purposeful business, two things need to happen. One is that the promise of the New Deal needs to be renewed, and protections for workers, the environment, and consumers in the U.S. need to be brought closer to the standards set in places like Germany and Scandinavia. 

But to do that first thing, a second thing is necessary. Changes within company law itself must occur, so that corporations are better positioned to support the restoration of that framework and govern themselves internally in a manner that respects their workers and society. Changing the power structure within corporate law itself—to require companies to give fair consideration to stakeholders and temper their need to put profit above all other values—will also limit the ability and incentives for companies to weaken regulations that protect workers, consumers, and society more generally.

To make this change, corporate purpose has to be enshrined in the heart of corporate law as an expression of the broader responsibility of corporations to society and the duty of directors to ensure this. Laws already on the books of many states in the U.S. do exactly that by authorizing the public benefit corporation (PBC). A PBC has an obligation to state a public purpose beyond profit, to fulfill that purpose as part of the responsibilities of its directors, and to be accountable for so doing. This model is meaningfully distinct from the constituency statutes in some states that seek to strengthen stakeholder interests, but that stakeholder advocates condemn as ineffectual. PBCs have an affirmative duty to be good corporate citizens and to treat all stakeholders with respect. Such requirements are mandatory and meaningful, while constituency statutes are mushy.

The PBC model is growing in importance and is embraced by many younger entrepreneurs committed to the idea that making money in a way that is fair to everyone is the responsible path forward. But the model’s ultimate success depends on longstanding corporations moving to adopt it. 

Even in the wake of the Roundtable’s high-minded statement, that has not yet happened, and for good reason. Although corporations can opt in to become a PBC, there is no obligation on them to do so and they need the support of their shareholders. It is relatively easy for founder-owned companies or companies with a relatively low number of stockholders to adopt PBC forms if their owners are so inclined. It is much tougher to obtain the approval of a dispersed group of institutional investors who are accountable to an even more dispersed group of individual investors. There is a serious coordination problem of achieving reform in existing corporations.

That is why the law needs to change. Instead of being an opt-in alternative to shareholder primacy, the PBC should be the universal standard for societally important corporations, which should be defined as ones with over $1 billion of revenues, as suggested by Sen. Elizabeth Warren. In the U.S., this would be done most effectively by corporations becoming PBCs under state law. The magic of the U.S. system has rested in large part on cooperation between the federal government and states, which provides society with the best blend of national standards and nimble implementation. This approach would build on that.

Corporate shareholders and directors enjoy substantial advantages and protections through U.S. law that are not extended to those who run their own businesses. In return for offering these privileges, society can reasonably expect to benefit, not suffer, from what corporations do. Making responsibility in society a duty in corporate law will reestablish the legitimacy of incorporation.

There are three pillars to this. The first is that corporations must be responsible corporate citizens, treating their workers and other stakeholders fairly, and avoiding externalities, such as carbon emissions, that cause unreasonable or disproportionate harm to others. The second is that corporations should seek to make profit by benefiting others. The third is that they should be able to demonstrate that they fulfill both criteria by measuring and reporting their performances against them.

The PBC model embraces all three elements and puts legal, and thus market, force behind them. Corporate managers, like most of us, take obligatory duties seriously. If they don’t, the PBC model allows for courts to issue orders, such as injunctions, holding corporations to their stakeholder and societal obligations. In addition, the PBC model requires fairness to all stakeholders at all stages of a corporation’s life, even when it is sold. The PBC model shifts power to socially responsible investment and index funds that focus on the long term and cannot gain from unsustainable approaches to growth that harm society. 

Our proposal to amend corporate law to ensure responsible corporate citizenship will prompt a predictable outcry from vested interests and traditional academic quarters, claiming that it will be unworkable, devastating for entrepreneurship and innovation, undermine a capitalist system that has been an engine for growth and prosperity, and threaten jobs, pensions, and investment around the world. If putting the purpose of a business at the heart of corporate law does all of that, one might well wonder why we invented the corporation in the first place. 

Of course, it will do exactly the opposite. Putting purpose into law will simplify, not complicate, the running of businesses by aligning what the law wants them to do with the reason why they are created. It will be a source of entrepreneurship, innovation, and inspiration to find solutions to problems that individuals, societies, and the natural world face. It will make markets and the capitalist system function better by rewarding positive contributions to well-being and prosperity, not wealth transfers at the expense of others. It will create meaningful, fulfilling jobs, support employees in employment and retirement, and encourage investment in activities that generate wealth for all. 

We are calling for the universal adoption of the PBC for large corporations. We do so to save our capitalist system and corporations from the devastating consequences of their current approaches, and for the sake of our children, our societies, and the natural world. 

À la prochaine…

actualités internationales Gouvernance Normes d'encadrement Nouvelles diverses Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale

Shareholder Primacy in the Time of Coronavirus

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…

actualités internationales normes de droit Nouvelles diverses Responsabilité sociale des entreprises Structures juridiques Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale

Décret sur les entreprises à mission : parution début janvier 2020

Le Décret n° 2020-1 du 2 janvier 2020 relatif aux sociétés à mission précise, d’une part, les déclarations que la société doit effectuer lors de sa demande d’immatriculation et les informations portées au répertoire mentionné à l’article R. 123-222 du code de commerce et, d’autre part, la vérification effectuée par l’organisme tiers indépendant sur l’exécution par la société à mission des objectifs sociaux et environnementaux mentionnés dans les statuts, que la société se donne pour mission de poursuivre dans le cadre de son activité. S’agissant de l’intervention de l’organisme tiers indépendant, les dispositions sont inspirées de celles relatives à la vérification des informations de la déclaration de performance extra-financière par un organisme tiers indépendant.

Pour accéder au décret : ici

À la prochaine…

actualités internationales Nouvelles diverses objectifs de l'entreprise Responsabilité sociale des entreprises Structures juridiques Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale

But d’une entreprise : pas que le profit !

Merci au professeur Pierre-Yves Gomez de mettre en évidence ce nous portons comme conviction avec ce blogue : l’entreprise n’est pas seulement une machine à faire des bénéfices ! Dans sa chronique intitulée « Le but de l’entreprise n’est pas de faire des profits » (Le Monde, 13 novembre 2019), le professeur Gomez rappelle certaines évidences économiques, mais aussi financières et juridiques.

Extrait :

« Le but de l’entreprise est de faire des profits » est un lieu commun, qui possède une force quasi mystique. Certes, dans un système capitaliste, l’entreprise doit réaliser des profits pour subsister. C’est une nécessité qu’on peut discuter et critiquer, mais il est clair que, dès lors qu’une unité de production est autonome et qu’elle ne peut compter que sur sa propre activité pour se pérenniser, elle doit dégager des résultats suffisants pour investir et rémunérer les détenteurs de capital qui sont une de ses nombreuses parties prenantes. Si tel n’était pas le cas, il faudrait trouver d’autres modalités pour assurer ces opérations.

Le profit est donc nécessaire. Mais on ne peut en déduire que le but de l’entreprise est de faire des profits. Contrairement à une idée souvent avancée, on ne trouve pas de textes juridiques soutenant une telle affirmation pour la raison décisive que l’entreprise n’a pas d’existence juridique. Seule la société en a une et même alors, le droit exige qu’elle déclare, dès sa constitution, sa raison sociale, c’est-à-dire la raison d’exister qui la rend acceptable pour la société. On ne connaît aucune entreprise qui se donnerait pour raison sociale de faire des profits…

Le but d’une entreprise est de réaliser un projet productif, avec ses dimensions économiques et sociétales, qui soit durable dans un environnement concurrentiel ; le profit est un des moyens de rendre pérenne un tel projet. L’opposition tranchée entre les entreprises orientées par les profits, et celles, plus vertueuses, dotées d’une mission sociale est donc caricaturale. On peut même soupçonner qu’elle alimente des postures et des débats qui n’existeraient pas sans ce préalable. C’est de bonne guerre, mais ce n’est pas de bonne science.

À la prochaine…

actualités internationales Gouvernance Nouvelles diverses Responsabilité sociale des entreprises Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale

Business Roundtable : la révolution en marche

Le Business Roundtable (association regroupant les plus grands chef d’entreprise américains) a pris une position audacieuse le 19 août 2019 : celle de redéfinir l’objectif des grandes entreprises (« Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation »).

While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders. We commit to:

  • Delivering value to our customers. We will further the tradition of American companies leading the way in meeting or exceeding customer expectations.
  • Investing in our employees. This starts with compensating them fairly and providing important benefits. It also includes supporting them through training and education that help develop new skills for a rapidly changing world. We foster diversity and inclusion, dignity and respect.
  • Dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers. We are dedicated to serving as good partners to the other companies, large and small, that help us meet our missions.
  • Supporting the communities in which we work. We respect the people in our communities and protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses.
  • Generating long-term value for shareholders, who provide the capital that allows companies to invest, grow and innovate. We are committed to transparency and effective engagement with shareholders.

Each of our stakeholders is essential.

Voir le communiqué de presse ici

À la prochaine…

actualités internationales devoirs des administrateurs Gouvernance normes de droit Nouvelles diverses objectifs de l'entreprise Responsabilité sociale des entreprises Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale

Loi PACTE : la réflexion continue

Bel article de Les Échos qui continue la réflexion sur la loi PACTE et le droit des sociétés : « Raison d’être, entreprise à mission, intérêt élargi… quels engagements et risques ? » (24 septembre 2019).

Extrait :

Une possible suppression du statut

Le statut de société à mission, également prévu par la loi Pacte , est plus engageant. Pour Bruno Dondero, avocat associé au sein du cabinet CMS Francis Lefebvre Avocats, la démarche est loin d’être anodine : «  Si un dirigeant se contente d’inscrire sa démarche dans les statuts, et qu’il ne fait rien pour prendre en compte les enjeux sociaux ou environnementaux dans ses choix, ou que son comportement est contraire à ses engagements, le ministère public ou toute personne intéressée, comme un fournisseur, un client ou une organisation associative, pourra demander la suppression de la mention », prévient l’avocat. Les risques qui pèsent sur le dirigeant sont-ils aussi importants pour la raison d’être ? Pas si sûr. «  Les conséquences juridiques de cette nouvelle notion sont assez incertaines. Cela dépend en partie de la façon dont la raison d’être est rédigée dans les statuts, tout en sachant que les associés pourront la modifier ou la supprimer. Plus elle est précise, plus elle sera contraignante  », estime Nicolas Borga. Mais une raison d’être définie de façon excessivement large pourrait également avoir des effets pervers tant son champ d’application serait vaste et tant elle donnerait prise à interprétation. 

Des labels pour sortir du lot

Une entreprise, dont la raison d’être serait de promouvoir le travail en France, qui déciderait de fermer une usine et de la délocaliser dans un pays où les coûts de production sont moins élevés, pourrait être chahutée. «  Une association pourrait se plaindre des effets d’une telle décision. Mais pourra-t-on reprocher à cette société d’avoir méconnu sa raison d’être lorsqu’elle sera en mesure d’établir qu’il en allait de sa survie et que son intérêt social commandait la prise d’une telle décision ? C’est improbable, poursuit Nicolas Borga. La raison d’être pourrait donc plus s’apparenter à un outil marketing. » Pour éviter qu’elle ne se limite à un effet de mode, sans lien avec la stratégie, les entreprises peuvent se tourner vers des labels. Des agréments comme Esus (entreprise solidaire d’utilité sociale), le label Lucie, ou B Corp, dont l’objectif est d’identifier et de faire progresser les entreprises qui intègrent à leurs activités des objectifs sociaux et environnementaux, vont réellement prendre de l’ampleur et devenir le moyen le plus évident de repérer les entreprises qui s’engagent.

actualités internationales Gouvernance Nouvelles diverses parties prenantes Responsabilité sociale des entreprises Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale

GM : gouvernance actionnariale v. salariés

L’auteur américain Robert Reich a pris sa plume pour dénoncer la situation de GM et le fait que les actionnaires sont encore les victimes d’une gouvernance critiquable : « Robert B. Reich: GM is the story of the American worker » (The Baltimore Sun, 23 septembre 2019). Une belle réflexion que je vous fait connaître ici.

Extrait :

When GM went public again in 2010, it boasted to Wall Street that 43 percent of its cars were made outside the United States in places where labor cost less than $15 an hour, while in America it could now pay « lower-tiered » wages and benefits for new employees. The corporation came roaring back. Over the last three years it’s made $35 billion in North America. But its workers are still getting measly pay packages, and GM is still outsourcing like mad. Last year it assigned its new Chevrolet Blazer, a sport utility vehicle that had been made in the United States, to a Mexican plant, while announcing it would lay off 18,000 American workers. Earlier this year it shut its giant plant in Lordstown, Ohio, which Donald Trump had vowed to save. « Don’t move. Don’t sell your house, » he said at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, in 2017. GM is still getting corporate welfare — since Trump took office, some $600 million in federal contracts and $700 million in tax breaks (including Trump’s giant corporate tax cut). Some of this largesse has gone into the pockets of GM executives. Chairman and CEO Mary Barra raked in almost $22 million in total compensation last year. Last month, the Business Roundtable — a confab of American CEOs, on whose executive committee Barra sits — pledged to compensate all employees « fairly » and provide them « important benefits. » Why should anyone believe them? For 40 years these CEOs have fought unions, outsourced jobs abroad, loaded up on labor-replacing technologies without retraining their workers, and abandoned their communities when they could do things more cheaply elsewhere. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos signed the same statement. Last week, Amazon-owned Whole Foods announced it would be cutting medical benefits for its entire part-time workforce — at a total savings of about what Bezos makes in two hours. Corporate profits have reached record levels, but nothing has trickled down to most workers. Profits now constitute a larger portion of national income, and wages a lower portion, than at any time since World War II. These profits are generating higher share prices (fueled by share buybacks) and higher executive pay, resulting in wider inequality. The richest 1 percent of Americans own about 40 percent of all shares of stock; the richest 10 percent, around 80 percent. The demise of unions explains much of this. In the mid-1950s, over a third of all workers in the private sector were unionized. This gave them substantial bargaining power to get higher wages and benefits. Today, just 6.4 percent of private-sector workers are unionized, eliminating most of that bargaining power. Researchers have found that between 1952 and 1988, almost all of the rise in share values came as a result of economic growth, but from 1989 to 2017, economic growth accounted for just 24 percent of the rise. Most of the increase has come from money that otherwise would have gone to workers. America’s shift from farm to factory was accompanied by decades of bloody labor conflict. The subsequent shift from factory to office and other service jobs created further social upheaval. The more recent power shift from workers to shareholders — and consequentially, the dramatic widening of inequality — has happened far more quietly, but it has had a more unfortunate and more lasting consequence for the system: stagnant wages, abandoned communities and an angry working class vulnerable to demagogues peddling authoritarianism, racism and xenophobia. Donald Trump didn’t come from nowhere, but he’s a fake champion of the working class. If he were the real thing, he’d be walking the picket line with GM workers.

À la prochaine…