Responsabilité sociale des entreprises

actualités internationales Gouvernance Normes d'encadrement Responsabilité sociale des entreprises

Un activisme qui fait bouger les choses

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…

Gouvernance Normes d'encadrement Responsabilité sociale des entreprises Structures juridiques

Purpose et revitalisation du droit des sociétés

La professeure australienne Rosemary Teele Langford offre un bel article relayé par l’Oxford Business Law Blog : « Purpose-Based Governance and Revitalisation of Company Law to Facilitate Purpose-Based Companies » (18 septembre 2020).

Extrait :

The permissibility of corporations pursuing purposes other than profit has been the subject of debate for a number of years. This debate has intensified recently with proposals from bodies such as the British Academy and the Business Round Table (as discussed in previous OBLB posts) to allow or mandate the adoption of purposes by corporations. The challenges posed by COVID-19 have also focused attention on corporate purpose. In addition, there is increasing demand for appropriate vehicles for the conduct of social enterprises and other purpose-based ventures. At the same time, purpose is central to governance in the charitable sphere. In two recent articles I critically analyse the role of purpose in Australian company and charity law and demonstrate revitalisation of the law to facilitate adoption of, and governance centred on, purpose.

(…)

The second article, ‘Use of the Corporate Form for Public Benefit – Revitalisation of Australian Corporations Law’, provides extended detail on relevant aspects of the company law regime and focuses more closely on particular issues that arise in the facilitation of purpose-based companies. These include the application of directors’ duties in the context of such companies, with particular focus on the application of the duty to act in good faith in the interests of the company where companies have multiple purposes. This in turn has relevance for the drafting of appropriate constitutional provisions. Other issues arise in relation to standing and enforcement, departure from purposes and signalling. The focus of analysis is on the for-profit corporate form given that it is uncontroversial that other corporate forms (such as companies limited by guarantee) can be used for charitable and not-for-profit purposes. 

In this respect, experience from the UK and US can provide helpful insights in the revitalisation of Australian law. In particular, scholarly analysis of the issues arising from these overseas legislative regimes, and suggested solutions, are invaluable in determining the application of directors’ duties to purpose-based companies and in framing appropriate constitutional provisions. Although changes to the law are not necessary to enable companies to adopt purposes, these lessons from other jurisdictions that have legislated to allow for special-purpose companies are therefore instructive in revitalising Australian law. 

This analysis demonstrates that revitalisation of Australian law to allow purpose-based companies is feasible. In fact, it is opportune. This in turn allows company law to be attuned to practical and conceptual developments in the corporate sphere and more broadly. Such revitalisation does not require a fundamental shift, particularly given the malleability of directors’ duties. Indeed, given that the origins of the corporate form were connected with public ends, this evolution of the corporate form, and the attendant adaption of directors’ duties, are a natural adaptation rather than a radical reformulation. 

À la prochaine…

devoirs des administrateurs Gouvernance Normes d'encadrement Responsabilité sociale des entreprises

Shareholder primacy — going beyond the shareholder

Dans « Shareholder primacy — going beyond the shareholder », Catherine Maxwell propose un billet intéressant que je relaie ici. Ce billet amène une réflexion sur la primauté de la norme actionnariale dans une perspective australienne.

Extraits :

The debate between those who advocate that the purpose of the company is to only to make profits for shareholders (shareholder primacy), and those who consider that a company should take into account a broader range of interests has a venerable history. We have seen advocates for both sides of the debate active in the last few weeks. We have also seen discussions about whether Australian law should change to include provisions which specifically permit directors to consider non-shareholder interests as has been done in parts of the US and the UK.

Shareholder Primacy in changing times Jason Harris has recently revisited the issue in his paper Shareholder Primacy, in Changing Times. Writing in the context of recent events, he has produced a comprehensive summary of both the history of the debate and the chain of legal authorities. He concludes ‘When board members make decisions they include a variety of considerations. They do so not simply because the law directs them to, but because of the commercial benefit in doing so. Shareholder primacy is not seriously under threat by these changing times, because it has only been one part of the story’. I tend to agree with him.

À la prochaine…

normes de droit responsabilisation à l'échelle internationale

Consultation du gouvernement australien sur des mesures de lutte contre l’évitement fiscal

Dans le budget 2015, le gouvernement australien a annoncé une série de mesures destinée à lutter contre l’évitement fiscal. C’est tout récemment que le gouvernement a publié deux mpropositions en ce domaine :

  • Introduire le nouveau standard de l’OCDE sur la documentation en matière de transfert de prix et de reporting pays-par-pays.
  • Doubler les sanctions pour les entreprises multinationales qui font de l’évitement fiscal.

Country-by-Country reporting and new transfer pricing documentation standards

This exposure draft inserts Subdivision 815-E into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. These amendments require entities with annual global revenue of $1 billion or more to file an annual statement with the Commissioner of Taxation. Large multinationals operating in Australia will be required to provide this statement, which will provide the Commissioner with relevant and reliable information to carry out transfer pricing risk assessments.

An entity may be required to include in its statement one or more of:

  • a Country-by-Country report containing information on the location of the economic activity undertaken by the multinational group;
  • a master file, which provides a high-level description of the multinational group’s business operations; and
  • a local file, which describes the Australian entity’s operations and cross border related party transactions.

Stronger penalties to combat tax avoidance and profit shifting

These amendments double the maximum administrative penalties for large companies that are found to have entered tax avoidance or profit shifting schemes. These increased penalties only apply to companies with annual global revenue exceeding $1 billion and that do not adopt a tax position that is reasonably arguable.


Pour soumettre votre avis, cliquez ici.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian