Normes d’encadrement | Page 99

Alors que le changement climatique est sur le devant de la scène et que les entreprises et les investisseurs ne peuvent l’ignorer, l’agence de notation extra-financière Vigeo a publié le 12 janvier 2016 une politique ambitieuse intitulé « Post COP21: How well companies & investors are positioned to respond to climate change » (Policy Briefing, Climate Change & Transition to a Low Carbon Economy). Ce document rappelle haut et fort que le changement climatique est une affaire d’entreprise et d’investisseur !

Investors have already played a key role in bringing about COP21, and in the post COP21 landscape, investors are vital to ensure meaningful results.

No doubt initiatives such as the Montreal Pledge, the RE100 investor initiative, investor campaigns on stranded assets, and the plethora of events both before and during COP21, demonstrated to governments investor will and thought-leadership here. The growing corporate-investor-government nexus whereby some companies are calling for a credible carbon price/tax is significant.

The importance of incentives for emissions reduction activities are recognised in the Agreement preamble, including domestic policies and carbon pricing.16 These calls to action will drive forward collective performance on climate change, in addition to the ongoing pressure investors can put on companies through the investment process.

Responsible investment plays a leading role in highlighting companies’ exposure to the risks of climate change and evaluating their capacity to mitigate them. Analyses from research intermediaries such as Vigeo Eiris can help investors to understand and better manage these mounting climate change risks.

At present, only a small proportion of companies are found to have an advanced response to climate change and energy transition. To drive forward performance, companies could be encouraged to tie Board-level remuneration to climate change targets. Corporate reporting could be improved, particularly through use of quantitative assessments, and companies should be encouraged to report on the impact of the whole product lifecycle on emissions. There is also room for much greater corporate acknowledgement of the policy context.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Depuis juillet 1995, date de la publication à l’initiative des entreprises du premier rapport sur le gouvernement d’entreprise des sociétés cotées, l’Afep et le Medef ont élaboré un ensemble de recommandations qui a permis à ces sociétés d’améliorer leur fonctionnement et leur gestion dans une grande transparence et de répondre ainsi aux attentes des investisseurs et du public.  Cet ensemble de recommandations, qui constitue le code Afep-Medef, peut être désigné par les sociétés cotées comme étant leur code de référence en application des articles L. 225-37 et L. 225-68 du code de commerce.

Depuis 2013, les parties prenantes (pouvoirs publics, associations d’actionnaires, investisseurs, agences de conseil en votes…) sont consultées à l’occasion des révisions successives du code.  L’AFEP et le MEDEF viennent de lancer un appel à consultation visant à recueillir les avis de la place sur les modifications envisagées du Code de gouvernement d’entreprise des sociétés cotées.

Le Club des juristes a sollicité Olivier Diaz, afin qu’il constitue un groupe de travail qui réponde à l’appel à consultation de l’Afep-Medef et puisse ainsi contribuer à l’amélioration des règles de gouvernance qui régissent la grande majorité des sociétés cotées françaises.

Accédez à la proposition du Club des juristes : ici.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Pour Paul Hodgson, il est temps de changer la done dans le domaine de la gouvernance d’entreprise : « Change to U.K. CEO pay or regulation seen as inevitable » (Compliance Week, 20 juillet 2016).

Voici un extrait :

wC’s latest report, called Time to Listen, is subtitled, “We need to find a way to respond to public concern about executive pay, or matters will be taken out of our hands.”

The report draws its conclusions on the need to address income inequality from both its own research and the British Social Attitudes 32 survey, published in 2015, which showed strong agreement, even among those voting conservative, to some stark statements:

• There is one law for the rich and another for the poor
• Ordinary people do not get their fair share of the nation’s wealth
• Management will always try to get the better of employees if it gets the chance
• Big business benefits owners at the expense of workers

(…) The paper concludes that CEO pay in listed companies is probably the result of market forces operating in imperfectly. It says that the current system of shareholder votes is working but has not been given time to “bed down” and that further regulation may do more harm than good. Finally, it says: “We should in any case be more concerned about pay structures than pay levels.” But the report says that action is not simply required at the top but also at the bottom; addressing stagnating pay and employment uncertainty for ordinary workers. Especially in a period of uncertainty caused by Brexit, “companies will be judged by how they treat the most vulnerable in their workforce.”

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Pays très ouvert aux acquéreurs étrangers – pour peu qu’ils payent le bon prix –, le Royaume-Uni n’avait pas été habitué à ce rang. En 2015, il représentait plus de 10 % des opérations de fusions-acquisitions à travers la planète. Le record avait même été de 18 % en 2000. Selon Thomson Reuters, les achats d’entreprises britanniques par des étrangers ont totalisé 43,8 milliards de dollars (39 milliards d’euros) entre le 1er janvier et le 16 juin, en recul de 74 %.

Alors que Theresa May a fait part de son intérêt d’importer en Grande-Bretagne le système allemand, MM. Horst Eidenmüller,  Mathias Habersack, Caspar Behme et Lars Klöhn  reviennent sur la pertinence de cette proposition en jetant un regard prudent (de chercheurs !) sur ce système : « Corporate Co-Determination German-Style as a Model for the UK? » (18 juillet 2016).

On 13 July 2016, Theresa May took up office as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Only shortly before, she had made headlines when she proposed to adopt European-style worker representation on the boards of leading companies.

Corporate co-determination hence seems to gain a certain degree of popularity with the British government – which is highly astonishing, considering that it was the UK which most fiercely fought against co-determination on a European level. It was mainly the diverging views of the UK and Germany on co-determination which have thwarted projects like the Draft Fifth Company Law Directive or the establishment of a European Private Company (Societas Privata Europaea, SPE). It is downright ironic that while the UK now shows an interest in co-determination, the concept is being questioned in Germany after decades of lying dormant. The reason for the new German discussion of co-determination are doubts regarding the compatibility of its specific form of co-determination with higher-ranking Union law. This post provides a brief overview of the most recent developments in German co-determination law that were the focus of a joint Oxford/Munich conference at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) in Munich in March 2016.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian