Normes d’encadrement

actualités internationales Divulgation Gouvernance normes de droit

Tranparence en matière de COVID-19 : quel bilan des entreprises aux États-Unis ?

David Larcker, Bradford Lynch, Brian Tayan et Daniel Taylor publient un texte qui revient sur la transparence des ghrandes entreprises américaines en matière de COVID-19 « The Spread of Covid-19 Disclosure » (29 juin 2020). Un document plein de statistiques et de tendances sur la transparence… vraiment intéressant sachant que l’enjeu de la question n’est pas à négliger.

Extrait :

The COVID-19 pandemic presents an interesting scenario whereby an unexpected shock to the economic system led to a rapid deterioration in the economic landscape, causing sharp changes in performance relative to expectations just a few months prior. For most companies, the pandemic has been detrimental. For a few, it brought unexpected demand. In many cases, supply chains have been strained, causing ripple effects that extend well beyond any one company.

How do companies respond to such a situation? What choices do they make, and how much transparency do they offer? How does disclosure vary in a setting where the potential impact is so widely uncertain? The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique setting to examine disclosure choices in a situation of extreme uncertainty that extends across all companies in the public market. This devastating outlier event provides a rare glimpse into disclosure behavior by managers and boards.

Why This Matters

  1. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to examine disclosure practices of companies relative to peers in real time about a somewhat unprecedented shock that impacted practically every publicly listed company in the U.S. We see that decisions varied considerably about whether to make disclosure and, if so, what and how much to say about the pandemic’s impact on operations, finances, and future. What motivates some companies to be forthcoming about what they are experiencing, while others remain silent? Does this reflect different degrees of certitude about how the virus would impact their businesses, or differences in managements’ perception of their “obligations” to be transparent with the public? What does this say about a company’s view of its relation and duty to shareholders?
  2. In one example, we saw a consumer beverage company make zero references to COVID-19 in its SEC filings and website, despite the virus plausibly having at least some impact on its business. In another example, we saw a company claim no material changes to its previously reported risk factors when managers almost certainly had relevant information about the virus and the likely impact on sales and operations. What discussion among the senior managers, board members, external auditor, and general counsel leads to a decision to make no disclosures? What should shareholders glean from this decision, particularly in light of peer disclosure?
  3. The COVID-19 pandemic represents a so-called “black swan” event that inflicted severe and unexpected damage to wide swaths of the economy. What strategic insights will companies learn from this event? Can boards use these insights to prepare for other possible outlier events, such as climate events, terrorism, cyber-attacks, pandemics, and other emergencies? Should these insights be disclosed to shareholders?

À la prochaine…

actualités internationales Gouvernance Normes d'encadrement normes de marché Nouvelles diverses Responsabilité sociale des entreprises

ESG : de plus en plus à la mode pour les entreprises du S&P 500

Selon le Wall Street Journal : « More Companies Are Making Noise About ESG » (4 octobre 2019). Voilà une bonne nouvelle pour la RSE !

Extrait :

Big U.S. companies are increasingly talking up environmental, social and governance factors on earnings calls—and betting that investors increasingly concerned with social responsibility will reward them for it.

Twenty-four companies in S&P 500 mentioned the acronym “ESG” on earnings conference calls between June 15 and Sept. 14, double the number that cited the term in the first quarter, according to FactSet.

That marks a huge increase from just two years earlier, when only two companies referred to ESG in the second quarter of 2017. But it still represents only 5% of the companies in the index.

The financial sector had the highest number of companies mentioning ESG, followed by the real-estate and utilities sectors.

À la prochaine…

engagement et activisme actionnarial normes de droit rémunération

Say on pay : éléments statistiques

« Companies Wind Up in the ‘Penalty Box’ on Executive Pay »… c’est sous ce titre que The Wall Street Journal revient le 20 avril 2016 sur le say on pay et les révoltes récentes de plusieurs actionnaires de grandes sociétés américaines.

Last week, for ~nstance, BP PLC saw a majority of votes cast against the oil company’s compensation decisions for 2015.

The only thing worse than losing a say-on-pay vote is losing two votes. Or three. Several businesses with multiple defeats, such as TCF Financial Corp., Oracle Corp. and gectrum Pharmaceuticals ,Inc., likely will face shareholder outcries over related payor corporate governance issues this year.

In all, 39 companies in the Russell 3000 index have lost say-on-pay votes at least twice between 2011 and April 15, according to Willis Towers Watson, a consulting firm. Nine lost the vote tliree or more times, its analysis found.

After losing a pay vote, many boards work hard to overcome investor dissatisfaction by  conferring with major stock.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian