Gouvernance | Page 10

C’est sous ce titre (« Raison d’être ou entreprise à mission, le faux débat », La Tribune, 2 septembre 2020) que M. Patrick d’Humières propose une lecture de la raison d’être et du statut d’entreprise à mission qui, selon lui, vont se rejoindre dans une trajectoire commune.

Extrait :

En apparence, le statut d’entreprise à mission rencontre un succès d’estime avec une cinquantaine d’entreprises très différentes, d’agences conseils à des sociétés mutuelles, qui l’ont adopté. Ce n’est pas le cas du statut de raison d’être, au bilan beaucoup plus mitigé, car les démarches que l’on connaît expriment des positionnements déclaratifs dans la veine de « la RSE de bonne volonté » qui ne s’accompagnent pas de mécanisme de mesure, de pression et de transparence garantissant de vrais changements d’orientation des modèles.

À la décharge des entreprises qui ont fait preuve d’initiative en la matière, il faut dire que le dispositif légal proposé comporte de considérables faiblesses. L’essentiel du changement juridique porté par la loi réside dans la modification de l’article 1833 du Code civil qui enjoint à toutes les entreprises de « prendre en considération les enjeux sociaux et environnementaux » au côté de l’intérêt social de l’entreprise, dont on n’a pas tiré les implications fondamentales. Les organisations professionnelles concernées ont fait preuve d’un souci défensif, pour limiter la mise en cause conséquente de cette assertion fondamentale, qui acte la nouvelle mission de l’entreprise, à savoir créer de la valeur dans le respect des enjeux sociétaux ; mais ni les juges, ni la puissance publique n’ont eu encore le souci d’accompagner ce cadre, cherchant plutôt à le minimiser, alors même que c’est une innovation majeure : il articule l’économie de marché avec la stratégie nationale de développement durable (ODD) et il crée le socle de ce qu’on appelle désormais « l’économie responsable », consacrée par la nomination pertinente d’une ministre en charge du sujet, qu’on aurait pu ou du appeler aussi « l’économie durable » dans un souci de cohérence politique.

Le texte de loi appelle des transformations de fond dans la gouvernance des entreprises qui devrait se poser des questions à cet effet, sans attendre qu’une jurisprudence fasse le travail pour dire qu’un Conseil d’administration ou une direction générale a mesestimé les enjeux sociaux et environnementaux, définis désormais de façon claire et objective (cf. indicateurs des ODD, incluant l’alignement sur l’Accord de Paris etc.).

L’entreprise dispose de tous les éléments pour établir son niveau de durabilité qui reconnaît cette prise de considération attendue des enjeux communs ; le travail de fond engagé parallèlement en Europe afin de standardiser l’information extra-financière ne pourra qu’encourager les Conseils à débattre et à décider de l’état de leur trajectoire économique au regard de leurs impacts acceptables qui sera la règle en 2025, à n’en pas douter.

Certaines entreprises ont tenu à disposer d’un cadre formel beaucoup plus structuré pour assumer cette responsabilité élargie à la Société, celui de « l’entreprise à mission » ; il constitue une facilité juridique et une aide technique qui a le plus grand intérêt pour accélérer la mutation d’un « capitalisme a-moral » vers « un capitalisme « parties prenantes ». Ce choix implique le vote par les actionnaires, le comité de suivi, l’audit de contrôle etc.. Les actionnaires n’ont pas à craindre pour autant une démission de l’engagement fiduciaire, à leur détriment, car le contrat est explicite, même s’il gagnerait encore à ce que les objectifs de rendement financier soient précisés au regard des objectifs d’amélioration de la création et de la répartition de la valeur globale et de leurs ROI. Ceci afin de ne pas glisser vers « le non profit » : une attention déséquilibrée en faveur de la dimension sociétale de la mission marginaliserait le dispositif, alors que les statuts coopératif, mutualiste ou solidaire sont là pour ça.

Coincé entre le droit général et le cadre précis de « la mission », « la raison d’être » aura du mal à trouver sa place, d’autant que la loi Pacte ne dit rien sur le comment, laissant l’entreprise libre de son engagement, de son inclusion ou non dans les statuts, ce qui en fait un process au mieux pédagogique et au pire de communication ; les parties prenantes ne voient pas les conclusions qu’on en tire sur les conditions nouvelles de production et de répartition de la valeur – objectifs et indicateurs à l’appui-  pour exclure ce qui n’est pas « durable » dans l’offre et équilibrer l’allocation des résultats, voire la négocier, s’il existe un mécanisme ad hoc en amont de « l’arbitraire » des conseils. On voit bien qu’une Raison d’Etre bien posée conduit à terme au mécanisme de l’entreprise à mission et que dans le cas contraire l’entreprise ne fait que s’exposer à des critiques et frustrations qui mettent sa stratégie au défi de la cohérence et de la constance d’une gouvernance qui voudrait avancer sans oser le demander à ses actionnaires…

Cette décantation se fera inévitablement dans le temps, au détriment des entreprises « superficielles » et à l’avantage des entreprises authentiques. Le dispositif de Raison d’Etre va devenir un statut intermédiaire, de transition vers « l’entreprise à mission » ; il pousse à la construction d’un droit des sociétés qui recherche le changement profond de la gouvernance actionnariale, comme vient de le proposer la Commission Européenne dans un rapport très critique sur l’engagement insuffisant des gouvernances qui s’abritent derrière des intentions pour répondre aux pressions, rendant leur projet illisible ! Mais rien n’empêche les gouvernances d’accélérer par elles-mêmes sans attendre un règlement européen et éviter les malentendus autour d’une « raison d’être incantatoire » qui mine  la crédibilité des initiatives sociétales des entreprises ; dans un monde périlleux, les gouvernances doivent « choisir leur camp » !

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…

Voici un article qui intéressera celles et ceux qui suivent l’actualité entourant les Public Benefit Corporation : « Delaware Public Benefit Corporations—Recent Developments » (Michael R. Littenberg, Emily J. Oldshue, and Brittany N. Pifer, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 31 août 2020).

Extrait :

The 2020 Amendments

Delaware has amended the PBC statute twice since inception to address concerns that limited its utility.

Most recently, in July, Delaware amended the PBC statute to, among other things, (1) reduce the stockholder approval threshold necessary for becoming a PBC, and for exiting the PBC regime; (2) eliminate statutory appraisal rights in connection with the conversion of a conventional corporation to a PBC; and (3) strengthen the protections for directors. Each of these amendments is discussed in more detail below.

Voting Thresholds for Opting In and Opting Out Lowered. Section 363(a) of the DGCL originally provided that an existing conventional corporation could not become a PBC without the approval of 90% of the outstanding stock on the amendment of its certificate of incorporation or the merger or consolidation with or into a PBC. Conversely, under Section 363(c), a PBC had to satisfy the 90% voting threshold to become a conventional corporation. In 2015, this threshold was amended down to a two-thirds majority. The 2020 PBC amendments eliminated Section 363(a) and (c). The result is that the voting thresholds for conversions, mergers and consolidations involving PBCs are now governed by Sections 242(b) and 251 of the DGCL, which provide for majority voting unless the certificate of incorporation provides otherwise.

Elimination of Statutory Appraisal Rights in Connection with PBC Conversions. Section 363(b) of the DGCL previously provided appraisal rights for stockholders of a conventional corporation that amended its certificate of incorporation to become a PBC or engaged in a merger or consolidation that resulted in the surviving corporation being a PBC, to the extent the stockholder did not vote for the amendment, merger or consolidation. In 2015, this section of the DGCL was amended to add a “market out” exception, which provided that appraisal rights generally would not be available to holders of shares listed on a national securities exchange or held of record by more than 2,000 holders. The market out exception of course did not apply in the private company context.

The 2020 PBC amendments eliminated Section 363(b). As a result, there no longer is a specific statutory appraisal right if a conventional corporation converts to a PBC. Appraisal rights in connection with PBC mergers and consolidations are now governed by Section 262 of the DGCL, which addresses appraisal rights in connection with mergers and consolidations more generally.

Director Protections Strengthened. As discussed above, under Section 365(a) of the DGCL, directors of a PBC must balance the pecuniary interest of stockholders, the interests of other stakeholders and the specific public benefit identified in the certificate of incorporation. Section 365(c) has been amended to clarify that a director’s ownership of stock or other interests in the PBC does not inherently create a conflict of interest, unless the ownership of the interests would create a conflict of interest in a conventional corporation.

In addition, the 2020 PBC amendments revised Section 365(c) to provide that any failure on a director’s part to satisfy Section 365(a)’s balancing requirement does not constitute an act or omission not in good faith or a breach of the duty of loyalty for purposes of Section 102(b)(7) (exculpation of directors) or Section 145 (indemnification) of the DGCL, unless the certificate of incorporation provides otherwise. Previously, this was framed as an opt-in in Section 365(c), rather than as an opt-out.

Ability to Bring Derivative Suit Brought into Alignment with Conventional Corporations. Section 367 of the DGCL sets forth the ownership requirements for PBC stockholders to be able to bring a derivative suit to enforce the statutory requirement to balance the stockholders’ pecuniary interests, the best interests of those materially affected by the PBC’s conduct and the public benefit identified in the certificate of incorporation. The 2020 PBC amendments provide that a derivative action to enforce the balancing requirement can only be brought by one or more plaintiffs owning individually or collectively (1) at least 2% of the corporation’s outstanding shares or (2) in the case of a corporation listed on a national securities exchange, the lesser of 2% of the corporation’s shares and shares with a value of at least $2,000,000.

The amendments to Section 367 align the thresholds for PBC derivative actions with those applicable to conventional corporations.

À la prochaine…

Sur l’Oxford Business Law Blog, le professeur Luca Enriques publie une synthèse bien intéressante à celles et ceux qui cherchent à faire le point sur les conséquences de la COVID-19 sur le droit des sociétés par actions : « GCGC/ECGI Global Webinar Series – Extreme times, Extreme Measures: Pandemic-Resistant Corporate Law » (22 avril 2020).

Extrait :

These are exceptional times. Almost everywhere, policymakers are taking exceptional measures. Most of these measures are in the domains of public health, public finance and public law. Among the latter, of great relevance to corporate governance are the rules broadening governments’ powers to authorize large share block purchases (eg, in Germany and Italy). Even stronger proposals are being aired, and in some cases already adopted, in the direction of injecting public funds into companies in exchange for equity (Germany), if not of nationalising businesses altogether (France).

But some incursions into private law have also been made. This is especially true with regard to insolvency (or bankruptcy) law, as documented by Aurelio Gurrea Martinez. Some of the bankruptcy law-related measures intervene to change rules that ordinarily apply in the vicinity of insolvency and are therefore at the boundary between insolvency and corporate law. For instance, a number of countries are discussing whether to review directors’ duties in the proximity of insolvency (eg, the UK and New Zealand: see Licht) or have already done so (eg, Australia, Spain and Germany). 

Similarly, some of the jurisdictions still providing for the ‘recapitalize or liquidate’ rule (which requires directors to promote a recapitalization of the company, convert it into an unlimited liability partnership or liquidate it, if net assets fall below a given threshold), such as Spain, Italy and Ecuador, have chosen to suspend its application during the crisis. Finally, in Italy rules on the subordination of shareholders loans have also been suspended.

This post asks the question of whether company law rules not specifically dealing with companies in the twilight zone should also be tweaked to face the emergency. One obvious focus are rules dealing with how general meetings must be held (see eg the UK and Italy). Such rules may be at odds with social distancing provisions wherever they don’t allow for virtual meetings or forms of collective representation of the shareholders. But one can think more broadly about how corporate law should be amended in order to avoid economic rather than viral contagion and keep companies afloat in these exceptional times. Below are some general considerations to guide policymakers’ choices in this area, followed by examples of temporary corporate law interventions for the emergency. This post concludes with some thoughts about how to prepare for a similar emergency in the future.

À la prochaine…

Ma collègue Beate Sjåfjell nous gâte encore avec un très bel article (accessible en ligne !) : « Sustainable Value Creation Within Planetary Boundaries—Reforming Corporate Purpose and Duties of the Corporate Board » (Sustainibility, 2020, Vol. 12, Issue 15). Je vous conseille vivement la lecture de cet article…

Résumé :

Business, and the dominant legal form of business, that is, the corporation, must be involved in the transition to sustainability, if we are to succeed in securing a safe and just space for humanity. The corporate board has a crucial role in determining the strategy and the direction of the corporation. However, currently, the function of the corporate board is constrained through the social norm of shareholder primacy, reinforced through the intermediary structures of capital markets. This article argues that an EU law reform is key to integrating sustainability into mainstream corporate governance, into the corporate purpose and the core duties of the corporate board, to change corporations from within. While previous attempts at harmonizing core corporate law at the EU level have failed, there are now several drivers for reform that may facilitate a change, including the EU Commission’s increased emphasis on sustainability. Drawing on this momentum, this article presents a proposal to reform corporate purpose and duties of the board, based on the results of the EU-funded research project, Sustainable Market Actors for Responsible Trade (SMART, 2016–2020).

À la prochaine…

Me Errol Cohen publie un intéressant article dans Les Échos.fr sur l’entreprise à mission : « La société à mission : un fonctionnement spécifique, Fiscalité et droit des entreprises » (13 août 2020).

Extrait :

La société à mission : un fonctionnement spécifique, Fiscalité et droit des entreprises

Le statut de société à mission s’appuie sur les travaux académiques relatifs à la société à objet social étendu. Mais il les adapte aux nouvelles dispositions relatives à la « raison d’être » . Ce dernier étage de la fusée regroupe essentiellement les principes suivants : une définition de la mission, étendant l’objet social, marquant l’engagement de l’entreprise et assurant l’opposabilité de la mission ; une mission qui intègre des objectifs d’ordre social et environnemental, propres à l’entreprise, et non réductibles au profit ; une mission qui constitue un outil d’ancrage de l’entreprise dans son environnement, ses écosystèmes et plus largement dans le cours de l’histoire, et qui vient donc donner un déploiement plus approfondi et plus opérationnel à la « raison d’être » ; un principe de contrôle interne de cet engagement par un comité de mission dont la composition reflète les différentes parties inscrites dans la mission, et notamment un salarié. Les parties prenantes de l’entreprise (sans que cette liste soit exhaustive, clients, fournisseurs, salariés, famille de ceux-ci, le territoire où ils se trouvent, etc.) ne sont pas explicitement mentionnées dans le texte de la « société à mission » mais elles sont clairement évoquées dans les débats parlementaires.

La notion de mission englobe aussi indirectement les principes suivants : la prise en compte du temps long, de l’innovation et de la recherche ; le développement pérenne, comme fondement de l’entreprise et de son engagement collectif ; la restauration de la liberté d’arbitrage du dirigeant et des instances de direction ; l’arbitrage éclairé dans le cadre de la mission.

La raison d’être, tout comme la mission, se distingue de la vocation habituelle de la société ou d’une activité qui se justifierait avant tout par son but lucratif. Elles doivent marquer des « avancées » et des engagements par rapport à l’objet social habituel, et donc impliquer des engagements nouveaux et des transformations à venir promises à certaines parties. Raison d’être et mission sont clairement des vecteurs de mouvement et de progrès collectif. Certes, des particularismes dans l’activité ou dans le déploiement d’une société peuvent rendre plus aisé le passage en société à mission, mais ils ne peuvent pour autant lui servir de substitut.

Indépendance du dirigeant face aux actionnaires

L’établissement d’une mission invite les dirigeants, dans leurs relations avec les actionnaires et les parties prenantes, à une prise de conscience plus large de leur action, des énergies à libérer et des partenaires à prendre en compte. La mission sera une vigoureuse incitation à projeter les valeurs sociales, environnementales et d’innovation dans un monde plus responsable et riche de sens. Ce plaidoyer peut paraître « idéaliste », mais il ne l’est en rien.

Il est facile de constater que les entreprises sont devenues des acteurs fondamentaux de nos sociétés, tant par la croissance économique et sociale qu’elles peuvent amener que par les impacts négatifs (pollutions, inégalités…) qu’elles peuvent induire.

Rappelons que ce qui s’est révélé être un parti pris idéaliste, c’était l’idée que les entreprises par la seule prise en compte de leur « intérêt bien compris » adopteraient spontanément des démarches engagées en faveur d’une responsabilité sociale et environnementale accrue. Or – et c’est là que se cachait l’idéalisme – c’était supposer que les dirigeants ont toujours les moyens de résister face aux exigences et aux pressions en termes de valeur actionnariale ; la recherche a bien montré que cette résistance, si elle existe, ne dure pas longtemps. Car l’univers des actionnaires est lui-même un univers en mouvement rapide.

Et si certains actionnaires peuvent être attentifs à l’intérêt à long terme de l’entreprise, encore faut-il que cette stratégie ne joue pas trop sur le cours des actions, car une baisse attirerait immédiatement des fonds activistes avides d’opérations aux effets rapides et qui rapportent gros. Paradoxalement, dans un monde dominé par la valeur actionnariale et les codes de gouvernance standards, un comportement vertueux vulnérabilise l’entreprise et peut la soumettre à des risques difficilement soutenables. Ce qui revient simplement à dire que l’idéalisme réside surtout dans l’idée que les dirigeants peuvent installer un comportement responsable envers et contre tous les mécanismes juridiques et normatifs actuels.

La société à mission permet de sortir du paradoxe de la vertu contre-productive et vulnérabilisante. Elle offre un schéma de gouvernance alternatif et cohérent qui soutient le dirigeant en réorganisant ses relations avec les actionnaires et les parties prenantes.L’auteur

À la prochaine…