Normes d’encadrement | Page 26

Me Laure Levine du cabinet Stikeman Elliott publie un billet éclairant sur la manière dont les grandes entreprises doivent divulguer l’information financière : « L’importance de l’information financière au temps de la COVID-19 » (24 juillet 2020).

Extrait :

Les ACVM ont publié une déclaration de soutien à la déclaration sur l’importance de fournir de l’information relative à la COVID-19 (la « déclaration de l’OICV ») de l’Organisation internationale des commissions de valeurs (l’« OICV ») du 29 mai 2020, qui rappelle aux émetteurs l’importance de communiquer une information financière de grande qualité aux investisseurs. Les ACVM renvoient également les émetteurs assujettis canadiens à leur présentation du 6 mai 2020 – COVID-19 : Les obligations d’information continue des émetteurs et leurs enjeux (la « présentation des ACVM »), qui décrit un certain nombre d’importants enjeux en lien avec la communication de l’information financière des émetteurs, y compris le rapport de gestion et les déclarations de changement important.

Dans sa déclaration, l’OICV reconnaît l’incidence considérable de la COVID-19 sur l’information publiée dans les états financiers des sociétés ouvertes à travers le monde et observe que les émetteurs vont devoir porter des jugements et faire des estimations importants dont le niveau d’incertitude sera plus élevé que d’habitude. Elle rappelle aux émetteurs l’importance d’avoir de l’information exacte pour faire des estimations et porter des jugements éclairés, compte tenu des répercussions de la pandémie de COVID-19 et de l’aide ou du soutien gouvernemental dont les émetteurs peuvent se prévaloir. (…).

Les émetteurs devraient également essayer d’adapter l’information donnée à propos de la COVID-19 à leur propre situation. Comme nous l’avons observé dans le passé, les formules toutes faites ou le modèle de communication universel de l’information ne suffiront généralement pas à décrire les incidences réelles ou éventuelles de la COVID-19 sur les activités de l’émetteur. Surtout, malgré les nombreuses répercussions de la COVID-19, les exigences de fond et de forme liées aux obligations d’information continue canadiennes demeurent les mêmes. Par conséquent, les effets de la COVID-19 se feront sentir sur certaines obligations d’information existantes.

Rapport de gestion

Dans son rapport de gestion, l’émetteur doit s’efforcer d’expliquer ce qui suit :

• Les répercussions réelles ou éventuelles de la COVID-19 sur ses résultats financiers, sa situation financière et ses flux de trésorerie. Il faut examiner les incidences de la COVID-19 sur les politiques de dividendes, le coût des immobilisations, ainsi que la capacité à recouvrer les comptes débiteurs et à s’acquitter des comptes fournisseurs et des autres obligations contractuelles, notamment les facilités de crédit et les passifs liés aux baux, entre autres.
• La manière dont il a changé sa stratégie afin d’endiguer les effets de la COVID-19. Il devrait mettre à jour ou retirer l’information prospective communiquée antérieurement afin de rendre compte de son changement de stratégie. Il devrait se demander s’il existe un fondement valable à l’information prospective communiquée antérieurement et quelles ont été les incidences de la COVID-19 sur ses perspectives globales en lien avec ses activités et sa situation de trésorerie à court et à long terme.
• Les mesures qu’il a prises afin d’atténuer les incidences de la pandémie sur son entreprise.

La présentation des ACVM rappelle aux émetteurs que le rapport de gestion est censé être un exposé de leurs résultats financiers du point de vue de la direction et met en évidence quatre principaux points d’intérêt dont ils doivent traiter dans leur rapport de gestion en lien avec la COVID-19 (…).

Information financière

Les ACVM reconnaissent que les émetteurs établissent leurs états financiers avec de l’information possiblement imparfaite, dans un contexte évolutif et incertain. Les émetteurs devraient formuler des jugements éclairés en fonction de la meilleure information disponible. À mesure que de nouvelles données émergent, il faut se demander s’il est nécessaire de mettre à jour les jugements et estimations ou l’information passée.

Les émetteurs doivent se rappeler des indications données dans l’Avis 52-306 du personnel des ACVM (révisé), Mesures financières non conformes aux PCGR, particulièrement au moment de décrire une perte ou une dépense comme étant non récurrente, rare ou inhabituelle lorsqu’une perte semblable est raisonnablement susceptible de se produire au cours d’une période de deux exercices. En outre, les ACVM considèrent qu’il serait trompeur de qualifier un ajustement comme étant relié à la COVID-19 si la direction n’explique pas de quelle façon ce montant y était expressément associé.

Déclarations de changement important

Finalement, la présentation des ACVM donne des indications sur les situations dans lesquelles la COVID-19 pourrait déclencher la production d’une déclaration de changement important. Même si une incidence égale sur l’ensemble d’un secteur d’activité ne constitue probablement pas un changement important, les incidences propres à l’émetteur pourraient nécessiter le dépôt d’une déclaration de changement important. Voici des exemples d’information potentiellement importante découlant de la COVID-19 énumérés dans la présentation des ACVM :

• Perturbation importante du personnel ou des activités d’exploitation de l’émetteur.
• Retards ou perturbations dans la chaîne d’approvisionnement.
• Hausse du coût des produits ou des services.

À la prochaine…

Dans un article paru dans Alternatives Économiques de juillet 2020, Bénédicte Weiss livre une analyse critique du reporting extra-financier en France : « Les rapports environnementaux des entreprises laissent à désirer ».

Résumé :

Les grandes entreprises françaises sont tenues de faire auditer leurs risques sociaux et environnementaux depuis la loi Grenelle II. Mais bien que le législateur français soit en avance sur la plupart des autres pays, l’absence de standardisation des informations requises rend leurs déclarations inégales.

À la prochaine…

Sur l’Oxford Business Law Blog, le professeur Luca Enriques publie une synthèse bien intéressante à celles et ceux qui cherchent à faire le point sur les conséquences de la COVID-19 sur le droit des sociétés par actions : « GCGC/ECGI Global Webinar Series – Extreme times, Extreme Measures: Pandemic-Resistant Corporate Law » (22 avril 2020).

Extrait :

These are exceptional times. Almost everywhere, policymakers are taking exceptional measures. Most of these measures are in the domains of public health, public finance and public law. Among the latter, of great relevance to corporate governance are the rules broadening governments’ powers to authorize large share block purchases (eg, in Germany and Italy). Even stronger proposals are being aired, and in some cases already adopted, in the direction of injecting public funds into companies in exchange for equity (Germany), if not of nationalising businesses altogether (France).

But some incursions into private law have also been made. This is especially true with regard to insolvency (or bankruptcy) law, as documented by Aurelio Gurrea Martinez. Some of the bankruptcy law-related measures intervene to change rules that ordinarily apply in the vicinity of insolvency and are therefore at the boundary between insolvency and corporate law. For instance, a number of countries are discussing whether to review directors’ duties in the proximity of insolvency (eg, the UK and New Zealand: see Licht) or have already done so (eg, Australia, Spain and Germany). 

Similarly, some of the jurisdictions still providing for the ‘recapitalize or liquidate’ rule (which requires directors to promote a recapitalization of the company, convert it into an unlimited liability partnership or liquidate it, if net assets fall below a given threshold), such as Spain, Italy and Ecuador, have chosen to suspend its application during the crisis. Finally, in Italy rules on the subordination of shareholders loans have also been suspended.

This post asks the question of whether company law rules not specifically dealing with companies in the twilight zone should also be tweaked to face the emergency. One obvious focus are rules dealing with how general meetings must be held (see eg the UK and Italy). Such rules may be at odds with social distancing provisions wherever they don’t allow for virtual meetings or forms of collective representation of the shareholders. But one can think more broadly about how corporate law should be amended in order to avoid economic rather than viral contagion and keep companies afloat in these exceptional times. Below are some general considerations to guide policymakers’ choices in this area, followed by examples of temporary corporate law interventions for the emergency. This post concludes with some thoughts about how to prepare for a similar emergency in the future.

À la prochaine…

La taxation des géants du numérique est toujours un sujet d’actualité : « La taxation du numérique dans l’impasse » (Le Devoir, 19 juin 2020).

Extrait :

Les négociations internationales sur la taxation du numérique, pomme de discorde récurrente entre Washington et Paris, se retrouvent dans l’impasse après la « pause » annoncée par les États-Unis, au risque de déclencher une guerre commerciale comme le craint l’OCDE.

Pour rappel, dans le cadre de ses recherches, TaxCOOP a analysé les documents constitutifs de plus de 190 pays à la recherche de dispositions fiscales créant l’obligation pour toute personne de payer sa « juste part » d’impôt. Il appert que les constitutions de trente-huit pays contiennent des dispositions à cet effet. Cet important constat soulève la question suivante : l’évitement fiscal est-il vraiment légal ou pourrait-il plutôt être inconstitutionnel? Ces dispositions fiscales inscrites au sein des documents considérés comme première source du droit pourraient-elles limiter l’utilisation de stratagèmes fiscaux et ainsi assurer que l’ensemble des contribuables paient leur « juste part »?

• La constitution des pays Évitement fiscal : à l’ encontre de la Constitution ?

À la prochaine…

Ma collègue Beate Sjåfjell nous gâte encore avec un très bel article (accessible en ligne !) : « Sustainable Value Creation Within Planetary Boundaries—Reforming Corporate Purpose and Duties of the Corporate Board » (Sustainibility, 2020, Vol. 12, Issue 15). Je vous conseille vivement la lecture de cet article…

Résumé :

Business, and the dominant legal form of business, that is, the corporation, must be involved in the transition to sustainability, if we are to succeed in securing a safe and just space for humanity. The corporate board has a crucial role in determining the strategy and the direction of the corporation. However, currently, the function of the corporate board is constrained through the social norm of shareholder primacy, reinforced through the intermediary structures of capital markets. This article argues that an EU law reform is key to integrating sustainability into mainstream corporate governance, into the corporate purpose and the core duties of the corporate board, to change corporations from within. While previous attempts at harmonizing core corporate law at the EU level have failed, there are now several drivers for reform that may facilitate a change, including the EU Commission’s increased emphasis on sustainability. Drawing on this momentum, this article presents a proposal to reform corporate purpose and duties of the board, based on the results of the EU-funded research project, Sustainable Market Actors for Responsible Trade (SMART, 2016–2020).

À la prochaine…

Billet à découvrir sur le site de Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance pour y lire cet article consacré à la sortie de crise sanitaire et aux apports de la raison d’être et des critères ESG : « ESG and Corporate Purpose in a Disrupted World » (Kristen Sullivan, Amy Silverstein et Leeann Galezio Arthur, 10 août 2020).

Extrait :

Corporate purpose and ESG as tools to reframe pandemic-related disruption

The links between ESG, company strategy, and risk have never been clearer than during the COVID-19 pandemic, when companies have had to quickly pivot and respond to critical risks that previously were not considered likely to occur. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Survey 2020, published in January 2020, listed “infectious diseases” as number 10 in terms of potential economic impact, and did not make the top 10 list of risks considered to be “likely.” The impact of the pandemic was further magnified by the disruption it created for the operations of companies and their workforces, which were forced to rethink how and where they did business virtually overnight.

The radical recalibration of risk in the context of a global pandemic further highlights the interrelationships between long-term corporate strategy, the environment, and society. The unlikely scenario of a pandemic causing economic disruption of the magnitude seen today has caused many companies—including companies that have performed well in the pandemic—to reevaluate how they can maintain the long-term sustainability of the enterprise. While the nature and outcomes of that reevaluation will differ based on the unique set of circumstances facing each company, this likely means reframing the company’s role in society and the ways in which it addresses ESG-related challenges, including diversity and inclusion, employee safety, health and well-being, the existence of the physical workplace, supply chain disruptions, and more.

ESG factors are becoming a key determinant of financial strength. Recent research shows that the top 20 percent of ESG-ranked stocks outperformed the US market by over 5 percentage points during a recent period of volatility. Twenty-four out of 26 sustainable index funds outperformed comparable conventional index funds in Q1 2020. In addition, the MSCI ACWI ESG Leaders Index returned 5.24 percent, compared to 4.48 percent for the overall market, since it was established in September 2007 through February 2020. Notably, BlackRock, one of the world’s largest asset managers, recently analyzed the performance of 32 sustainable indices and compared that to their non-sustainable benchmarks as far back as 2015. According to BlackRock the findings indicated that “during market downturns in 2015–16 and 2018, sustainable indices tended to outperform their non-sustainable counterparts.” This trend may be further exacerbated by the effects of the pandemic and the social justice movement.

Financial resilience is certainly not the only benefit. Opportunities for brand differentiation, attraction and retention of top talent, greater innovation, operational efficiency, and an ability to attract capital and increase market valuation are abundant. Companies that have already built ESG strategies, measurements, and high-quality disclosures into their business models are likely to be well-positioned to capitalize on those opportunities and drive long-term value postcrisis.

As businesses begin to reopen and attempt to get back to some sense of normalcy, companies will need to rely on their employees, vendors, and customers to go beyond the respond phase and begin to recover and thrive. In a postpandemic world, this means seeking input from and continuing to build and retain the confidence and trust of those stakeholder groups. Business leaders are recognizing that ESG initiatives, particularly those that prioritize the health and safety of people, will be paramount to recovery.

What are investors and other stakeholders saying?

While current events have forced and will likely continue to force companies to make difficult decisions that may, in the short term, appear to be in conflict with corporate purpose, evidence suggests that as companies emerge from the crisis, they will refresh and recommit to corporate purpose, using it as a compass to focus ESG performance. Specific to the pandemic, the public may expect that companies will continue to play a greater role in helping not only employees, but the nation in general, through such activities as manufacturing personal protective equipment (PPE), equipment needed to treat COVID-19 patients, and retooling factories to produce ventilators, hand sanitizer, masks, and other items needed to address the pandemic. In some cases, decisions may be based upon or consistent with ESG priorities, such as decisions regarding employee health and well-being. From firms extending paid sick leave to all employees, including temporary workers, vendors, and contract workers, to reorienting relief funds to assist vulnerable populations, examples abound of companies demonstrating commitments to people and communities. As companies emerge from crisis mode, many are signaling that they will continue to keep these principles top of mind. This greater role is arguably becoming part of the “corporate social contract” that legitimizes and supports the existence and prosperity of corporations.

In the United States, much of the current focus on corporate purpose and ESG is likely to continue to be driven by investors rather than regulators or legislators in the near term. Thus, it’s important to consider investors’ views, which are still developing in the wake of COVID-19 and other developments.

Investors have indicated that they will assess a company’s response to the pandemic as a measure of stability, resilience ,and adaptability. Many have stated that employee health, well-being, and proactive human capital management are central to business continuity. Investor expectations remain high for companies to lead with purpose, particularly during times of severe economic disruption, and to continue to demonstrate progress against ESG goals.

State Street Global Advisors president and CEO Cyrus Taraporevala, in a March 2020 letter to board members, emphasized that companies should not sacrifice the long-term health and sustainability of the company when responding to the pandemic. According to Taraporevala, State Street continues “to believe that material ESG issues must be part of the bigger picture and clearly articulated as part of your company’s overall business strategy.” According to a recent BlackRock report, “companies with strong profiles on material sustainability issues have potential to outperform those with poor profiles. We believe companies managed with a focus on sustainability may be better positioned versus their less sustainable peers to weather adverse conditions while still benefiting from positive market environments.”

In addition to COVID-19, the recent social justice movement compels companies to think holistically about their purpose and role in society. Recent widespread protests of systemic, societal inequality leading to civil unrest and instability elevate the conversation on the “S” and “G” in ESG. Commitments to the health and well-being of employees, customers, communities, and other stakeholder groups will also require corporate leaders to address how the company articulates its purpose and ESG objectives through actions that proactively address racism and discrimination in the workplace and the communities where they operate. Companies are responding with, among other things, statements of support for diversity and inclusion efforts, reflective conversations with employees and customers, and monetary donations for diversity-focused initiatives. However, investors and others who are pledging to use their influence to hold companies accountable for meaningful progress on systemic inequality will likely look for data on hiring practices, pay equity, and diversity in executive management and on the board as metrics for further engagement on this issue.

What can boards do?

Deloitte US executive chair of the board, Janet Foutty, recently described the board as “the vehicle to hold an organization to its societal purpose.” Directors play a pivotal role in guiding

companies to balance short-term decisions with long-term strategy and thus must weigh the needs of all stakeholders while remaining cognizant of the risks associated with each decision. COVID-19 has underscored the role of ESG principles as central to business risk and strategy, as well as building credibility and trust with investors and the public at large. Boards can advise management on making clear, stakeholder-informed decisions that position the organization to emerge faster and stronger from a crisis.

It has been said before that those companies that do not control their own ESG strategies and narratives risk someone else controlling their ESG story. This is particularly true with regards to how an organization articulates its purpose and stays grounded in that purpose and ESG principles during a crisis. Transparent, high-quality ESG disclosure can be a tool to provide investors with information to efficiently allocate capital for long-term return. Boards have a role in the oversight of both the articulation of the company’s purpose and how those principles are integrated with strategy and risk.

As ESG moves to the top of the board agenda, it is important for boards to have the conversation on how they define the governance structure they will put in place to oversee ESG. Based on a recent review, completed by Deloitte’s Center for Board Effectiveness, of 310 company proxies in the S&P 500, filed from September 1, 2019, through May 6, 2020, 57 percent of the 310 companies noted that the nominating or governance committee has primary oversight responsibility, and only 9 percent noted the full board, with the remaining 34 percent spread across other committees. Regardless of the primary owner, the audit committee should be engaged with regard to any ESG disclosures, as well as prepared to oversee assurance associated with ESG metrics.

Conclusion

The board’s role necessitates oversight of corporate purpose and how corporate purpose is executed through ESG. Although companies will face tough decisions, proactive oversight of and transparency around ESG can help companies emerge from recent events with greater resilience and increased credibility. Those that have already embarked on this journey and stay the course will likely be those well-positioned to thrive in the future.

Questions for the board to consider asking:

How are the company’s corporate purpose and ESG objectives integrated with strategy and risk?

1. Has management provided key information and assumptions about how ESG is addressed during the strategic planning process?
2. How is the company communicating its purpose and ESG objectives to its stakeholders?
3. What data does the company collect to assess the impact of ESG performance on economic performance, how does this data inform internal management decision- making, and how is the board made aware of and involved from a governance perspective?
4. Does the company’s governance structure facilitate effective oversight of the company’s ESG matters?
5. How is the company remaining true to its purpose and ESG, especially now given COVID-19 pandemic and social justice issues?
6. What is the board’s diversity profile? Does the board incorporate diversity when searching for new candidates?
7. Have the board and management discussed executive management succession and how the company can build a diverse pipeline of candidates?
8. How will the company continue to refresh and recommit to its corporate purpose and ESG objectives as it emerges from the pandemic response and recovery and commit to accelerating diversity and inclusion efforts?
9. How does the company align its performance incentives for executive leadership with attaining critical ESG goals and outcomes?

À la prochaine…