Normes d’encadrement

Intéressant article de Pierre-Olivier Zappa : « Les épiceries, des profits, elles en mangent » (Le journal de Montréal, 28 mai 2022). En parcourant cet article, nous pouvons nous interroger sur la responsabilité sociale des actionnaires de ces grandes enseignes avec une question simple en tête : agissent-ils de manière socialement responsable ? Pas sûr… Toutefois, devrait-il le faire, voilà une autre belle interrogation sachant que le droit canadien permet aux actionnaires de se conduire de manière égoïste !

Extrait

Ce qui me dépasse encore plus, ce sont les profits des épiciers. On nous répète que les aliments coûtent plus cher parce que l’engrais coûte plus cher, parce que l’essence coûte plus cher, parce que la main-d’œuvre coûte plus cher, et qui sait quelles autres justifications. Pourtant, les profits des grandes bannières ne cessent de gonfler. Alors la question se pose : qui s’en met plein les poches ?

Au début du mois de mai, Loblaw Companies a déclaré des profits en hausse de 40 % par rapport à la même période l’an dernier. La maison mère de Provigo a vu ses ventes d’aliments augmenter de 2,4 % pour atteindre 8,7 milliards $ au dernier trimestre.

Metro passe elle aussi à la caisse. Malgré les pressions inflationnistes et les augmentations de salaire, la chaîne a enregistré un bénéfice net à son deuxième trimestre de 198,1 millions $, en hausse de 5,3 %. Chez Empire, qui possède la bannière IGA, les profits ont aussi grimpé de 5 %.

À la prochaine…

Intéressant article du professeur étatsunien Stephen Bainbridge sur la fameuse décision américaine Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. : « Why We Should Keep Teaching Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. » (UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 22-05, 5 avril 2022). Le titre ne laissera personne indifférent puisqu’il est exactement à l’opposé de celui de la professeure Lynn Stout publié en 2008 !

À la prochaine…

À l’été 2020, Yvan Allaire et François Dauphin ont publié une belle tribune dans Le Devoir intitulé : « Actionnaires et parties prenantes : quelle gouvernance à venir ? ». Ils démontrent tout leur scepticisme en mettant en lumière les zones d’ombre du modèle des parties prenantes.

En raison surtout d’une véritable révolution des modes et quanta de rémunération des hauts dirigeants, les sociétés cotées en bourse en sont venues graduellement depuis les années ’80s à œuvrer presqu’exclusivement pour maximiser la création de valeur pour leurs actionnaires.

Tout au cours de ces 40 ans, ce modèle de société fut critiqué, décrié, tenu responsable pour les inégalités de revenus et de richesse et pour les dommages environnementaux. Toutefois, tant que cette critique provenait d’organisations de gauche, de groupuscules sans appui populaire, les sociétés pouvaient faire fi de ces critiques, les contrant par des campagnes de relations publiques et des ajustements mineurs à leur comportement.

Soudainement, pour des raisons multiples, un peu mystérieuses, cette critique des entreprises et du « capitalisme » a surgi du cœur même du système, soit, de grands actionnaires institutionnels récemment convertis à l’écologie. Selon cette nouvelle perspective, les sociétés cotées en bourse devraient désormais non seulement être responsables de leurs performances financières, mais tout autant de l’atteinte d’objectifs précis en matière d’environnement (E), d’enjeux sociaux (S) et de gouvernance (G). Pour les grandes entreprises tout particulièrement, le triplé ESG, de facto le modèle des parties prenantes, est devenu une caractéristique essentielle de leur gouvernance.

Puis, signe des temps, quelque 181 PDG des grandes sociétés américaines ont pris l’engagement, il y a un an à peine, de donner à leurs entreprises une nouvelle «raison d’être » (Purpose en anglais) comportant un « engagement fondamental » envers clients, employés, fournisseurs, communautés et leur environnement et, ultimement, les actionnaires.

De toute évidence, le vent tourne. Les questions environnementales et sociales ainsi que les attentes des parties prenantes autres que les actionnaires sont devenues des enjeux incontournables inscrits aux agendas politiques de presque tous les pays.

Les fonds d’investissement de toute nature bifurquèrent vers l’exigence de plans d’action spécifiques, de cibles mesurables en matière d’ESG ainsi qu’un arrimage entre la rémunération des dirigeants et ces cibles.

Bien que louable à bien des égards, le modèle de « parties prenantes » soulève des difficultés pratiques non négligeables.

1. Depuis un bon moment la Cour suprême du Canada a interprété la loi canadienne de façon favorable à une conception « parties prenantes » de la société. Ainsi, un conseil d’administration doit agir exclusivement dans l’intérêt de la société dont ils sont les administrateurs et n’accorder de traitement préférentiel ni aux actionnaires ni à toute autre partie prenante. Toutefois la Cour suprême n’offre pas de guide sur des sujets épineux conséquents à leur conception de la société : lorsque les intérêts des différentes parties prenantes sont contradictoires, comment doit-on interpréter l’intérêt de la société? Comment le conseil d’administration devrait-il arbitrer entre les intérêts divergents des diverses parties prenantes? Quelles d’entre elles devraient être prises en compte?

2. Comment les entreprises peuvent-elles composer avec des demandes onéreuses en matière d’ESG lorsque des concurrents, domestiques ou internationaux, ne sont pas soumis à ces mêmes pressions?

3. À un niveau plus fondamental, plus idéologique, les objectifs ESG devraient-ils aller au-delà de ce que la réglementation gouvernementale exige? Dans une société démocratique, n’est-ce pas plutôt le rôle des gouvernements, élus pour protéger le bien commun et incarner la volonté générale des populations, de réglementer les entreprises afin d’atteindre les objectifs sociaux et environnementaux de la société? Mais se peut-il que cette conversion des fonds d’investissement aux normes ESG et la redécouverte d’une « raison d’être » et des parties prenantes par les grandes sociétés ne soient en fait que d’habiles manœuvres visant à composer avec les pressions populaires et atténuer le risque d’interventions « intempestives » des gouvernements?

4. Quoi qu’il en soit, le changement des modes de gestion des entreprises, présumant que cette volonté est authentique, exigera des modifications importantes en matière d’incitatifs financiers pour les gestionnaires. La rémunération des dirigeants dans sa forme actuelle est en grande partie liée à la performance financière de l’entreprise et fluctue fortement selon le cours de l’action. Relier de façon significative la rémunération des dirigeants à certains objectifs ESG suppose des changements complexes qui susciteront de fortes résistances. En 2019, 67,2% des firmes du S&P/TSX 60 ont intégré au moins une mesure ESG dans leur programme de rémunération incitative. Toutefois, seulement 39,7% ont intégré au moins une mesure liée à l’environnement. Quelque 90% des firmes qui utilisent des mesures ESG le font dans le cadre de leur programme annuel de rémunération incitative mais pas dans les programmes de rémunération incitative à long terme. Ce fait est également observé aux États-Unis, alors qu’une étude récente de Willis Towers Watson démontrait que seulement 4% des firmes du S&P 500 utilisaient des mesures ESG dans des programmes à long terme.

5. N’est-il pas pertinent de soulever la question suivante : si l’entreprise doit être gérée selon le modèle des « parties prenantes », pourquoi seuls les actionnaires élisent-ils les membres du conseil d’administration? Cette question lancinante risque de hanter certains des promoteurs de ce modèle, car il ouvre la porte à l’entrée éventuelle d’autres parties prenantes au conseil d’administration, telles que les employés. Ce n’est peut-être pas ce que les fonds institutionnels avaient en tête lors de leur plaidoyer en faveur d’une conversion ESG.

Un vif débat fait rage (du moins dans les cercles académiques) sur les avantages et les inconvénients du modèle des parties prenantes. Dans le milieu des entreprises toutefois, la pression incessante des grands investisseurs a converti la plupart des directions d’entreprises à cette nouvelle religion ESG et parties prenantes même si plusieurs questions difficiles restent en suspens.

À la prochaine…

À lire cet intéressant article du professeur Licht : Amir Licht, « Varieties of Shareholderism: Three Views of the Corporate Purpose Cathedral », 19 octobre 2020, European Corporate Governance Institute – Law Working Paper No. 547/2020.

Résumé :

This Chapter seeks to make three modest contributions by offering views of the corporate purpose cathedral that bear on the role of law in it. These views underscore the difference and the tension between an individual perspective and a societal/national legal perspective on the purpose of the corporation. First, it reviews a novel dataset on national legal shareholderism – namely, the degree to which national corporate laws endorse shareholder primacy – as an exercise in operationalizing legal constructs. Second, it anchors the two archetypal approaches of shareholderism and takeholderism in personal human values. It is this connection with the fundamental conceptions of the desirable which animates attitudes and choices in this context. The upshot is potentially subversive: Legal injunctions to directors on corporate purpose might be an exercise in futility. Third, this Chapter highlights the importance of acknowledging the tensions between the two levels of analysis by looking at the works of prominent writers. Adolf Berle, Victor Brudney, and Leo Strine have been careful to keep this distinction in mind, which has enabled them to hold multiple views of the cathedral without losing sight of it.

À la prochaine…

Billet à lire de Frederick Alexander et al. : « From Shareholder Primacy to Stakeholder Capitalism » (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 26 octobre 2020).

Extrait :

This policy agenda includes the following categories of interventions required for a broad transition to Stakeholder Capitalism.

We have drafted proposed Federal legislative language, “The Stakeholder Capitalism Act,” attached in Exhibit A of the full paper linked to below, which incorporates each of the following ideas:

Responsible Institutions: We propose that the trustees of institutional investors be required to consider certain economic, social, and environmental effects of their decisions on the interests of their beneficiaries with respect to stewardship of companies within their portfolios. This clarified understanding of fiduciary duty will ensure that institutional investors use their authority to further the real interests of those beneficiaries who have stakes in all aspects of the economy, environment, and society. These changes can be achieved through an amendment to the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) by inserting language after paragraph (54) of Section 2 and after subsection (c) of Section 36.

Responsible Companies: Just as trustees of invested funds must expand their notion of the interests of their beneficiaries, the companies in which they invest must also expand the understanding of the interests of the economic owners of their shares, who are more often than not those same beneficiaries. We propose a federal requirement that any corporation or other business entity involved in interstate commerce be formed under a state statute that requires directors and officers to account for the impact of corporate actions not only on financial returns, but also on the viability of the social, natural, and political systems that affect all stakeholders. This change can be achieved through the addition of a new Chapter 2F of Title 15 of the U.S. Code.

Tools for Institutional Accountability: In order to allow beneficiaries to hold institutional investors accountable for the impact of their stewardship on all the interests of beneficiaries, we propose laws that mandate disclosure as to how they are meeting their responsibility to consider these broad interests, including disclosure of proxy voting and engagement with companies. We propose that the Securities and Exchange Commission should promulgate rules requiring each investment company and each employee benefit plan required to file an annual report under section 103 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Tools for Company Accountability: Corporate and securities laws that govern businesses must also be changed in order to give institutional investors the tools to meet their enhanced responsibilities. This will include requiring large companies to meet new standards for disclosure regarding stakeholder impact as an important element of their accountability. This proposal can be achieved through an amendment added to The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) after section 13A.

(…)

This tension cannot be wished away. The White Paper proposes a solution: rules that facilitate and encourage investor-sanctioned guardrails. Such guardrails would allow shareholders to insist that all companies that they own forgo profits earned through the exploitation of people and planet. Unlike executives, the institutional shareholders who control the markets are diversified, so that their success rises and falls with the success of the economy, rather than any single company. This means that these institutions suffer when individual companies pursue profits with practices that harm the economy. We believe that by leveling the competitive playing field, these changes will pave the way for the type of corporate behavior imagined by the New Paradigm, the Davos Manifesto and the Business Roundtable Statement.

Indeed, far from being “state corporatism,” as the memo claims, what we propose is “human capitalism,” where the workers, citizens, and other humans whose savings fund corporations are given a say in the kind of world they live in. Will it be one in which all compete in a manner that rejects unjust profits? Or, in contrast, will it be one in which corporations continue to lobby against regulation that protects workers while the corporate executives make 300 times the median salary of workers?

À la prochaine…

La professeur australienne Jennifer Hill (toujours intéressante à lire, je vous la conseille vivement !) vient de publier ce nouvel article « Corporations, Directors’ Duties and the Public/Private Divide » dans l’ECGI Law Series 539/2020 (25 septembre 2020). Par rapport à nos thématiques du site, cette étude est un incontournable !

Extrait :

Business history and theory reflect a tension between public and private conceptions of the corporation. This tension and conceptual ambiguity lay close to the surface of The Modern Corporation and Private Property, in which Berle and Means portrayed the modern public corporation as straddling the public/private divide. It is also embodied in the famous Berle-Dodd debate, which provides the basis for contemporary clashes between “different visions of corporatism,” such as the conflict between shareholder primacy and stakeholder-centered versions of the corporation.

This chapter examines a number of recent developments suggesting that the pendulum, which swung so clearly in favour of a private conception of the corporation from the 1980s onwards, is in the process of changing direction.

The chapter provides two central insights. The first is that there is not one problem, but multiple problems in corporate law, and that different problems may come to the forefront at different times. Although financial performance is a legitimate concern in corporate law, it is also important to recognize, and address, the danger that corporate conduct may result in negative externalities and harm to society. The chapter argues that it is therefore, a mistake to view the two sides of the Berle-Dodd debate as binary and irreconcilable. The second insight is that corporate governance techniques (such as performance-based pay), which are designed to ameliorate one problem in corporate law, such as corporate performance, can at the same time exacerbate other problems involving the social impact of corporations.

As the chapter shows, a number of recent developments in corporate law have highlighted the negative externalities and social harm that corporate actions can cause. These developments suggest the emergence of a more cohesive vision of the corporation that encompasses both private and public aspects. The developments also potentially affect the role and duties of company directors, who are no longer seen merely as monitors of corporate performance, but also as monitors of corporate integrity and the risk of social harm.

À la prochaine…

Belle tribune dans Fortune de MM. Colin Mayer, Leo Strine Jr et Jaap Winter au titre clair : « 50 years later, Milton Friedman’s shareholder doctrine is dead » (13 septembre 2020).

Extrait :

Fifty years ago, Milton Friedman in the New York Times magazine proclaimed that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Directors have the duty to do what is in the interests of their masters, the shareholders, to make as much profit as possible. Friedman was hostile to the New Deal and European models of social democracy and urged business to use its muscle to reduce the effectiveness of unions, blunt environmental and consumer protection measures, and defang antitrust law. He sought to reduce consideration of human concerns within the corporate boardroom and legal requirements on business to treat workers, consumers, and society fairly. 

Over the last 50 years, Friedman’s views became increasingly influential in the U.S. As a result, the power of the stock market and wealthy elites soared and consideration of the interests of workers, the environment, and consumers declined. Profound economic insecurity and inequality, a slow response to climate change, and undermined public institutions resulted. Using their wealth and power in the pursuit of profits, corporations led the way in loosening the external constraints that protected workers and other stakeholders against overreaching.

Under the dominant Friedman paradigm, corporations were constantly harried by all the mechanisms that shareholders had available—shareholder resolutions, takeovers, and hedge fund activism—to keep them narrowly focused on stockholder returns. And pushed by institutional investors, executive remuneration systems were increasingly focused on total stock returns. By making corporations the playthings of the stock market, it became steadily harder for corporations to operate in an enlightened way that reflected the real interests of their human investors in sustainable growth, fair treatment of workers, and protection of the environment.

Half a century later, it is clear that this narrow, stockholder-centered view of corporations has cost society severely. Well before the COVID-19 pandemic, the single-minded focus of business on profits was criticized for causing the degradation of nature and biodiversity, contributing to global warming, stagnating wages, and exacerbating economic inequality. The result is best exemplified by the drastic shift in gain sharing away from workers toward corporate elites, with stockholders and top management eating more of the economic pie.

Corporate America understood the threat that this way of thinking was having on the social compact and reacted through the 2019 corporate purpose statement of the Business Roundtable, emphasizing responsibility to stakeholders as well as shareholders. But the failure of many of the signatories to protect their stakeholders during the coronavirus pandemic has prompted cynicism about the original intentions of those signing the document, as well as their subsequent actions.

Stockholder advocates are right when then they claim that purpose statements on their own achieve little: Calling for corporate executives who answer to only one powerful constituency—stockholders in the form of highly assertive institutional investors—and have no legal duty to other stakeholders to run their corporations in a way that is fair to all stakeholders is not only ineffectual, it is naive and intellectually incoherent.

What is required is to match commitment to broader responsibility of corporations to society with a power structure that backs it up. That is what has been missing. Corporate law in the U.S. leaves it to directors and managers subject to potent stockholder power to give weight to other stakeholders. In principle, corporations can commit to purposes beyond profit and their stakeholders, but only if their powerful investors allow them to do so. Ultimately, because the law is permissive, it is in fact highly restrictive of corporations acting fairly for all their stakeholders because it hands authority to investors and financial markets for corporate control.

Absent any effective mechanism for encouraging adherence to the Roundtable statement, the system is stacked against those who attempt to do so. There is no requirement on corporations to look after their stakeholders and for the most part they do not, because if they did, they would incur the wrath of their shareholders. That was illustrated all too clearly by the immediate knee-jerk response of the Council of Institutional Investors to the Roundtable declaration last year, which expressed its disapproval by stating that the Roundtable had failed to recognize shareholders as owners as well as providers of capital, and that “accountability to everyone means accountability to no one.” 

If the Roundtable is serious about shifting from shareholder primacy to purposeful business, two things need to happen. One is that the promise of the New Deal needs to be renewed, and protections for workers, the environment, and consumers in the U.S. need to be brought closer to the standards set in places like Germany and Scandinavia. 

But to do that first thing, a second thing is necessary. Changes within company law itself must occur, so that corporations are better positioned to support the restoration of that framework and govern themselves internally in a manner that respects their workers and society. Changing the power structure within corporate law itself—to require companies to give fair consideration to stakeholders and temper their need to put profit above all other values—will also limit the ability and incentives for companies to weaken regulations that protect workers, consumers, and society more generally.

To make this change, corporate purpose has to be enshrined in the heart of corporate law as an expression of the broader responsibility of corporations to society and the duty of directors to ensure this. Laws already on the books of many states in the U.S. do exactly that by authorizing the public benefit corporation (PBC). A PBC has an obligation to state a public purpose beyond profit, to fulfill that purpose as part of the responsibilities of its directors, and to be accountable for so doing. This model is meaningfully distinct from the constituency statutes in some states that seek to strengthen stakeholder interests, but that stakeholder advocates condemn as ineffectual. PBCs have an affirmative duty to be good corporate citizens and to treat all stakeholders with respect. Such requirements are mandatory and meaningful, while constituency statutes are mushy.

The PBC model is growing in importance and is embraced by many younger entrepreneurs committed to the idea that making money in a way that is fair to everyone is the responsible path forward. But the model’s ultimate success depends on longstanding corporations moving to adopt it. 

Even in the wake of the Roundtable’s high-minded statement, that has not yet happened, and for good reason. Although corporations can opt in to become a PBC, there is no obligation on them to do so and they need the support of their shareholders. It is relatively easy for founder-owned companies or companies with a relatively low number of stockholders to adopt PBC forms if their owners are so inclined. It is much tougher to obtain the approval of a dispersed group of institutional investors who are accountable to an even more dispersed group of individual investors. There is a serious coordination problem of achieving reform in existing corporations.

That is why the law needs to change. Instead of being an opt-in alternative to shareholder primacy, the PBC should be the universal standard for societally important corporations, which should be defined as ones with over $1 billion of revenues, as suggested by Sen. Elizabeth Warren. In the U.S., this would be done most effectively by corporations becoming PBCs under state law. The magic of the U.S. system has rested in large part on cooperation between the federal government and states, which provides society with the best blend of national standards and nimble implementation. This approach would build on that.

Corporate shareholders and directors enjoy substantial advantages and protections through U.S. law that are not extended to those who run their own businesses. In return for offering these privileges, society can reasonably expect to benefit, not suffer, from what corporations do. Making responsibility in society a duty in corporate law will reestablish the legitimacy of incorporation.

There are three pillars to this. The first is that corporations must be responsible corporate citizens, treating their workers and other stakeholders fairly, and avoiding externalities, such as carbon emissions, that cause unreasonable or disproportionate harm to others. The second is that corporations should seek to make profit by benefiting others. The third is that they should be able to demonstrate that they fulfill both criteria by measuring and reporting their performances against them.

The PBC model embraces all three elements and puts legal, and thus market, force behind them. Corporate managers, like most of us, take obligatory duties seriously. If they don’t, the PBC model allows for courts to issue orders, such as injunctions, holding corporations to their stakeholder and societal obligations. In addition, the PBC model requires fairness to all stakeholders at all stages of a corporation’s life, even when it is sold. The PBC model shifts power to socially responsible investment and index funds that focus on the long term and cannot gain from unsustainable approaches to growth that harm society. 

Our proposal to amend corporate law to ensure responsible corporate citizenship will prompt a predictable outcry from vested interests and traditional academic quarters, claiming that it will be unworkable, devastating for entrepreneurship and innovation, undermine a capitalist system that has been an engine for growth and prosperity, and threaten jobs, pensions, and investment around the world. If putting the purpose of a business at the heart of corporate law does all of that, one might well wonder why we invented the corporation in the first place. 

Of course, it will do exactly the opposite. Putting purpose into law will simplify, not complicate, the running of businesses by aligning what the law wants them to do with the reason why they are created. It will be a source of entrepreneurship, innovation, and inspiration to find solutions to problems that individuals, societies, and the natural world face. It will make markets and the capitalist system function better by rewarding positive contributions to well-being and prosperity, not wealth transfers at the expense of others. It will create meaningful, fulfilling jobs, support employees in employment and retirement, and encourage investment in activities that generate wealth for all. 

We are calling for the universal adoption of the PBC for large corporations. We do so to save our capitalist system and corporations from the devastating consequences of their current approaches, and for the sake of our children, our societies, and the natural world. 

À la prochaine…