Normes d’encadrement

devoirs des administrateurs Gouvernance mission et composition du conseil d'administration Normes d'encadrement normes de droit normes de marché Responsabilité sociale des entreprises Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale

Étude de l’UE sur les devoirs des administrateurs : une gouvernance loin d’être durable !

Belle étude qu’offre l’Union européenne sur les devoirs des administrateurs et la perspective de long-terme : « Study on directors’ duties and sustainable corporate governance » (29 juillet 2020). Ce rapport document le court-termisme de la gestion des entreprises en Europe. En lisant les grandes lignes de ce rapport, on se rend compte d’une chose : on est loin du compte et la RSE n’est pas encore suffisamment concrétisée…

Résumé :

L’accent mis par les instances décisionnelles au sein des entreprises sur la maximisation à court terme du profit réalisé par les parties prenantes, au détriment de l’intérêt à long terme de l’entreprise, porte atteinte, à long terme, à la durabilité des entreprises européennes, tant sous l’angle économique, qu’environnemental et social.
L’objectif de cette étude est d’évaluer les causes du « court-termisme » dans la gouvernance d’entreprise, qu’elles aient trait aux actuelles pratiques de marché et/ou à des dispositions réglementaires, et d’identifier d’éventuelles solutions au niveau de l’UE, notamment en vue de contribuer à la réalisation des Objectifs de Développement Durable fixés par l’Organisation des Nations Unies et des objectifs de l’accord de Paris en matière de changement climatique.
L’étude porte principalement sur les problématiques participant au « court-termisme » en matière de droit des sociétés et de gouvernance d’entreprises, lesquelles problématiques ayant été catégorisées autour de sept facteurs, recouvrant des aspects tels que les devoirs des administrateurs et leur application, la rémunération et la composition du Conseil d’administration, la durabilité dans la stratégie d’entreprise et l’implication des parties prenantes.
L’étude suggère qu’une éventuelle action future de l’UE dans le domaine du droit des sociétés et de gouvernance d’entreprise devrait poursuivre l’objectif général de favoriser une gouvernance d’entreprise plus durable et de contribuer à une plus grande responsabilisation des entreprises en matière de création de valeur durable. C’est pourquoi, pour chaque facteur, des options alternatives, caractérisées par un niveau croissant d’intervention réglementaire, ont été évaluées par rapport au scénario de base (pas de changement de politique).

Pour un commentaire, voir ce billet du Board Agenda : « EU urges firms to focus on long-term strategy over short-term goals » (3 août 2020).

À la prochaine…

finance sociale et investissement responsable Gouvernance Normes d'encadrement

Too Many Corporations Act For The Short-Term. That Should Change

Dans un article paru le 30 août 2018 dans Forbes, Arne Alsin livre une belle tribune en faveur du long-termisme des entreprises : « Too Many Corporations Act For The Short-Term. That Should Change ». Il revient par la même occasion sur le rachat d’actions par les entreprises, sur l’activisme actionnariale et sur le rôle que doivent jouer les investisseurs institutionnels.

 

Extrait :

As long-term investors, we want corporations to be thinking about the future. Unfortunately, from our vantage point, short-term thinking has become endemic on Wall Street. While CEOs publicly profess their commitment to the long-term interests of shareholders, too often we see how their actions directly contradict their words.

First, let’s consider a major factor of short-termism: stock buybacks. The immense buyback boom of 2018 is truly staggering. This year, S&P 500 companies are on pace to spend a record-breaking $1 trillion on stock buybacks, according to an analysis by Bloomberg. While executives often pitch these buybacks as a “return of capital” to shareholders, plenty of research suggests the truth is more complicated for long-term investors.

When executives choose to spend shareholder cash on buybacks, it’s a rather simple process: A company executive decides that “extra” cash on the balance sheet is better off being spent repurchasing shares. Without the input of shareholders—and often without any rigorous explanation to shareholders—CEOs then buy up stock, which drives up EPS, which, in turn, helps drive up the stock price. That’s the short-term view.

In the long-term, however, companies that spend billions on buybacks—like GE, Cisco, Oracle, and IBM to name a few—they effectively siphon money away from innovation, research and development, worker training, and reinvestment into new lines of business.

(…) In general, over the next few years, we anticipate seeing a wave of shareholder activism—through proposals and campaigns that align with the interests of long-term shareholders and target short-term mindsets. This isn’t just about buybacks, either. We expect long-term shareholders to fight for corporate issues surrounding fossil fuels, board diversity, worker pay, and so on.

Many of these fights have already begun, and that’s a positive development. Shirley Westcott,  a senior vice President at Alliance Advisors LLC, recently noted that proposals are indeed on the rise. “Calls for various types of climate action have resonated strongly with investors as have social initiatives on gun violence, sexual misconduct and the opioid epidemic,” M. Westcott writes. “Pay programs have faced more frequent rebukes and even auditors, in isolated events, have been challenged over independence and performance.”

Corporate democracy may seem like an oxymoron in today’s top-down corporate structures, but the truth is that in a healthy economic system, corporate directors listen to and respond to feedback from all shareholders. Very often, we’ll see that conversation being dominated by short-term-minded activist hedge funds, whose managers buy up large positions in a stock, and then push management into short-term decisions that drive the stock up—but leave little left for reinvestment that create value over the long-term.

“Armed with their huge war chests,” writes Bill Lazonick, an economist at UMass, “these new-style corporate predators use a corrupt proxy-voting system, “wolf pack” hook-ups with other hedge funds, and once-illegal engagement with management to compel corporations to hand over profits that the hedge funds did nothing to create.”

True, but we believe activist hedge funds will have an increasingly major force to contend with: Major institutional shareholders, long-term investors, and, especially, pension funds.

 

À la prochaine…

Gouvernance normes de droit Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale

Is short-termism wrecking the economy?

Dans une entrevue sur la BBC (ici), Le chef économiste de la Banque d’Angleterre (Andy Haldane) a livré une belle critique du court-termisme invoquant le fait que les sociétés devraient investir davantage dans le futur plutôt que verser des dividendes en argent aux actionnaires ou de racheter leurs actions. Très intéressant à lire !

Morceaux choisis :


Last Friday on Newsnight the Bank of England’s chief economist Andy Haldane sought to kick-start a debate on how companies run themselves. He told me that companies risk « eating themselves » as shareholders and management were gripped by a form of short-termism. Instead of investing in their futures firms are choosing to pay out too much of their cash to shareholders in the form of dividends or by buying back their own shares. (…)

It’s perfectly possible that shareholders might be too powerful and too disinterested. The issue could be that management is too focussed on short-term shareholder returns and so prioritises returning cash to them and increasing the share price in the short term, even if that isn’t in the company’s long-term interest. (…)

To understand how this situation might have arisen over the last few decades, one only needs to look at two trends. As Haldane argued last week – shareholding periods have fallen. There are fewer and fewer investors willing to take a long-term view. And secondly the trend has been to increasingly tie top management payment to share price performance. In other words, whatever the long-term benefits of investment in machinery, research or training five or six years down the line, we may have a system in which the rational thing to do is to focus on the next six months, not the next six years. The possible fixes to this situation are many and varied – from embracing a Germanic system of stakeholder capitalism (in which the workforce as well as the owners have a role in decision making), to looking again at executive compensation or maybe to an intermediate situation – perhaps ordering directors to act in the interest of a theoretical « perpetual shareholder », rather than existing (often short-term) investors. None of those options are a quick fix, all involve reform of the Companies Act, which is a mammoth bit of legislation. (…)

This is a big agenda and a big debate. On one level it could even be described as an attempt to save capitalism from capitalists, an argument that the ultimate owners of capital have stopped working in their own long-term interest. But, perhaps in those terms, it sounds too radical. On a more micro level this is a debate about economic incentives. It may simply be that the incentive structure in Anglo-Saxon capitalism has become skewed towards rewarding short-term behaviour.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian