This study for the European Commission focuses on due diligence requirements to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for abuses of human rights, including the rights of the child and fundamental freedoms, serious bodily injury or health risks, environmental damage, including with respect to climate. It was conducted by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (lead), Civic Consulting and LSE Consulting. Through desk research, country analyses, interviews and surveys it identifies Market Practices (Task 1) and perceptions regarding regulatory options. The Regulatory Review (Task 2), including twelve Country Reports, shows that UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ standard of due diligence is increasingly being introduced into legal standards or proposed in Member States. The Problem Analysis, policy background and intervention logic concludes with the definition of four options for regulatory proposals (Task 3): No change (Option 1), new voluntary guidelines (Option 2), new reporting requirements (Option 3) and mandatory due diligence as a legal standard of care (Option 4). Option 4 includes sub-options limited to sector and company size, and enforcement through state-based oversight or judicial / non-judicial remedies. The assessment of impacts of regulatory options (Task 4) considers economic impacts, impacts on public authorities, social, human rights and environmental impacts.
M. Bruno Alomar revient sur 25 ans de réforme en Europe en matière de gouvernance dans un article de Le Figaro : « Europe et entreprise : 25 ans de réforme de la gouvernance, pour quel bilan ? » (20 décembre 2017). Cet article est intéressant en jetant un éclairage critique sur les grandes orientations qui ont caractérisé la gouvernance d’entreprise…
Extrait :
Au niveau de l’entreprise, le mouvement continuel de réformes a vu fleurir comités d’études, administrateurs indépendants, codes éthiques, médiateurs internes etc. Surtout, la réforme de la corporate governancea conduit à repenser le fonctionnement des organes de décision, en imposant un modèle de dissociation du pouvoir, soit par la distinction directoire/ conseil de surveillance, soit par la dissociation des fonctions président et de directeur général.
Comme en matière européenne, malgré des progrès (transparence), la gouvernance n’a pas été significativement améliorée. La dissociation du pouvoir, cœur de la réforme, d’inspiration anglo-saxonne et germanique, a en réalité largement abouti à une dilution des responsabilités. Qu’il soit permis de rappeler ici que le droit français, au travers de la fonction de Président-Directeur-Général (PDG), présente lui des atouts que l’on a trop souvent ignorés. La concentration lisible des pouvoirs entre ses mains en est un, qui garantit que son titulaire n’agit pas seulement dans l’intérêt des actionnaires, mais bien dans celui de l’entreprise, qui est plus vaste. La claire reddition des comptes en est un autre, puisque le PDG voit son action encadrée par un large principe de responsabilité, et qu’il est, de surcroît révocable selon un régime strict (sans motif ni dommages-intérêts). Enfin, l’entreprise, ses salariés, comme les citoyens, doivent sans ambiguïtés, savoir qui prend les décisions, qui incarne la société, particulièrement quand l’entreprise concernée connaît une phase de mutation profonde: le PDG.
Japanese corporate culture is being blamed for the mistakes. Economists Naoshi Ikeda, Kotaro Inoue and Sho Watanabe of the Tokyo Institute of Technology recently set out to test the « quiet-life hypothesis, » which is, as Bloomberg describes, « the idea that without shareholder pressure, managers will tend to avoid big decisions and content themselves with managing stable corporate empires, letting their companies stagnate. »
The researchers found that there’s a lot of this « quiet-life » business activity going on in Japan. Cross-shareholding (Keiretsu), where corporations own each other’s stock is rife, and this means companies are reluctant to challenge each other. The researchers found that at companies with a considerable level of cross-ownership, R&D spending and growth CapEx is relatively low compared to the rest of the market.
But progress is being made. Three and a half years after the government introduced a stewardship code for local institutional investors and more than two years since the launch of a governance code for listed Japanese companies, listed companies are moving in the right direction. Dividend payouts have reached a record, and there has been a quadrupling of firms with two or more independent directors on their boards over the past four years. There has also been an increase in of “constructive,” or friendly, activists (referred to as engagement funds rather than activist funds), which aim to tackle corporate governance issues, but with an explicitly low-key, humble approach.
The Guardian publie un éditorial qui se veut critique de la réforme qui va être mise en place au Royaume-Uni : « The Guardian view on corporate governance reform: be stronger, not weaker ». C’est le 29 août 2017 que le Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy a publié la réponse du gouvernement britannique à la consultation lancée le 27 novembre 2016 qui avait un objectif ambitieux affiché par le premier Ministre. Intitulé « Corporate Governance Reform : The Government Response to the Green Paper Consultation », ce document fait la synthèse des 375 commentaires reçus et émet une série de propositions qui vont être mises en place. Deux axes forts ressortent des initiatives à venir : un meilleur alignement de la rémunération des hauts-dirigeants avec le salaire des employés au travers de la publication d’un ratio et un renforcement de la portée de l’article 172 de la loi des sociétés de 2006 par le biais d’une divulgation accrue relativement à la mise en œuvre de cette disposition.
Petit extrait :
Mrs May’s concern about these issues is right and rational. They are unfinished business for modern Britain. Unfortunately there is little that measures up in this package. Several of the ideas that Mrs May floated in 2016 – themselves fairly modest in the first place – have now been trimmed back or dropped altogether, in response to lobbying by the chancellor, Philip Hammond. Binding annual votes by shareholders on executive pay have bitten the dust. Now the City’s self-regulatory code will require companies only to publish the pay ratio between CEOs and their workforce average. Plans to put employee representatives on company boards have been abandoned. Now the appointment of a non-executive director “to represent employees” will suffice.
The dilution of the proposals reflects several things.
So what changes, in what could be the most significant reform of corporate governance since the 2005 Greenbury report, is the paper proposing to make – and how are business leaders responding?
Morceaux choisis :
“Unions are angry that the proposal to have workers on boards has been dropped, in favour of advisory panels for workers and consumers, and the allocation of special responsibilities to non-executives. Large private companies will be dismayed about proposals about new rules for them. They may argue that this has been based on the poor behaviour of a small minority.”
“The paper toes a very careful line – raising important questions – and then delivering fairly watered-down recommendations. For example, the paper suggests a binding annual shareholder vote on executive pay, but excludes some elements of executive pay packages from the vote.
“I welcome any effort that encourages business to do the right thing, but corporate governance is about so much more than regulating executive pay. The boardroom sets the standard for the whole of the business and must be accountable for that ».
« For reform to be taken forward, business leaders should be encouraged to focus on changes that drive long-term prospects ».
Le 10 octobre, The National Law Review a publié un article intéressant revenant sur la situation britannique et les réformes à venir en gouvernance d’entreprise : « UK Corporate Governance: Change Has Got to Come! ».
A number of themes trailed in UK’s Theresa May’s first speech after securing the Conservative nomination, were repeated at last week’s Conservative Party conference in Birmingham. The new Government reiterated its intention to occupy the centre ground of British politics and the delivery of this political objective will undoubtedly have implications for corporate Britain – in the words of the Prime Minister “ a change has got to come.”
At the moment we are short on detail, but the Government has promised to publish plans later this year to have consumers and workers represented on company boards of directors. Speech soundbites also focussed on executive pay, the taxation of international business and the payment of excessive dividends, together with a more general promise to protect and enhance workers’ rights.
Bonjour à tous et à toutes, le Business Roundtable (association privée regroupant les plus importants président de la haute-direction) vient de publier son dernier guide des principes de gouvernance d’entreprise. Intitulé « Business Roundtable’s Principles of Corporate Governance », ce guide
The latest edition of the Business Roundtable’s Principles of Corporate Governance makes one particular principle much more fundamental than it was in the previous edition of the guide.
That principle is diversity, a hot topic in the association world. In a key section of the report, the Roundtable emphasizes that a board should encompass in its members a variety of diverse backgrounds and experiences.
Les principes mis de l’avant sont les suivants :
The board approves corporate strategies that are intended to build sustainable long-term value; selects a chief executive officer (CEO); oversees the CEO and senior management in operating the company’s business, including allocating capital for long-term growth and assessing and managing risks; and sets the “tone at the top” for ethical conduct.
Management develops and implements corporate strategy and operates the company’s business under the board’s oversight, with the goal of producing sustainable long-term value creation.
Management, under the oversight of the board and its audit committee, produces Financial statements that fairly present the company’s financial condition and results of operations and makes the timely disclosures investors need to assess the financial and business soundness and risks of the company.
The audit committee of the board retains and manages the relationship with the outside auditor, oversees the company’s annual financial statement audit and internal controls over Financial reporting, and oversees the company’s risk management and compliance programs.
The nominating/corporate governance committee of the board plays a leadership role in shaping the corporate governance of the company, strives to build an engaged and diverse board whose composition is appropriate in light of the company’s needs and strategy, and actively conducts succession planning for the board.
The compensation committee of the board develops an executive compensation philosophy, adopts and oversees the implementation of compensation policies that fit within its philosophy, designs compensation packages for the CEO and senior management to incentivize the creation of long-term value, and develops meaningful goals for performance-based compensation that support the company’s longterm value creation strategy.
The board and management should engage with long-term shareholders on issues and concerns that are of widespread interest to them and that affect the company’s long-term value creation. Shareholders that engage with the board and management in a manner that may affect corporate decisionmaking or strategies are encouraged to disclose appropriate identifying information and to assume some accountability for the long-term interests of the company and its shareholders as a whole. As part of this responsibility, shareholders should recognize that the board must continually weigh both short-term and long-term uses of capital when determining how to allocate it in a way that is most beneficial to shareholders and to building long-term value.
In making decisions, the board may consider the interests of all of the company’s constituencies, including stakeholders such as employees, customers, suppliers and the community in which the company does business, when doing so contributes in a direct and meaningful way to building long-term value creation.
