Gouvernance

Les professeurs Ferrarini et Zhu se pose une question bien intéressante que je relaie ici : « Is There a Role for Benefit Corporations in the New Sustainable Governance Framework? » (30 mai 2021, European Corporate Governance Institute – Law Working Paper No. 588/2021). À cette question, ils répondent de manière prudente. Un article à découvrir…

Résumé :

In this paper, we ask whether benefit corporations have a role to play in the emerging EU sustainable governance framework. In sec. 2, we briefly introduce the benefit corporation with regard to US law and to the laws of some EU member States, such as France and Italy, which have adopted this company form. In sec. 3, we focus on the benefit corporation’s purpose and function from a comparative law perspective, asking whether benefit corporations perform a useful function internationally. We argue that corporate purpose tends to be a flexible concept across countries and that benefit corporations are not the only way to reconcile profit and social values in business corporations.

In sec. 4, we compare the critical features of the law relating to benefit corporations with the essential elements of the emerging sustainable governance framework. We show that the latter partially overlaps with the laws on benefit corporations and to some extent is a substitute for them, therefore reducing the potential interest in this corporate form.

In sec. 5, we conclude that mainly firms which the new EU sustainable governance framework does not apply to, such as non-listed SMEs, will adopt the benefit corporation model when available in their jurisdiction, while other companies may still adopt it mostly for communicating their commitment to sustainability.

À la prochaine…

En voilà une nouvelle ! La province de Colombie-Britannique vient de faire place à une Benefit Corporation. Certaines modifications apportées à la Business Corporations Act de la Colombie-Britannique (la « BCBCA ») qui vont entrer en vigueur le 30 juin 2020 permettent la création d’un nouveau sous-type de société, la « société d’intérêt social » (la benefit company). La Colombie-Britannique est le premier territoire canadien à adopter ce concept qui n’est pourtant pas nouveau aux États-Unis. Pas sûr que ce choix soit heureux dans la mesure où la 3C existait déjà et qu’elle se révèle sans doute plus porteuse pour la RSE…

Pour en savoir plus : « Une première au Canada : les sociétés d’« intérêt social » arrivent en Colombie-Britannique » (Stikeman Elliott, 5 juin 2020)

Extrait :

The major distinctions between a B.C. benefit company and other B.C. companies are as follows:

• Notice of articles: The benefit company’s notice of articles will contain the following statement (the “benefit statement”):

This company is a benefit company and, as such, is committed to conducting its business in a responsible and sustainable manner and promoting one or more public benefits.

• Articles: The benefit company’s articles must include a provision that specifies the public benefits to be promoted (“benefit provision”). “Public benefit” refers to something that has a positive effect that benefits (i) a class of persons other than shareholders of the company in their capacity as shareholders, or a class of communities or organizations, or (ii) the environment. The positive effect can be:
  • Artistic
  • Charitable
  • Cultural
  • Economic
  • Educational
  • Environmental
  • Literary
  • Medical
  • Religious
  • Scientific
  • Technological

• Alterations: Any decision to adopt or eliminate the benefit statement (i.e. to alter the company’s status as a benefit company) must be approved by a special resolution of the voting shareholders. Both voting and non-voting shareholders of the benefit company are entitled to dissent rights with respect to such a change or to a change in the benefit provision.
• Benefit report: Each year, the benefit company must prepare, provide to its shareholders and post on its website (if it has one) a report (“benefit report”) that assesses the company’s performance in carrying out the commitments set out in the company’s benefit provision compared to a third-party standard. The report needs to include information about the process and rationale for selecting or changing the relevant third-party standard. Regulations may be enacted that provide more details about the third-party standard and the contents of the benefit report.
• Penalties relating to the benefit report: It will be an offence if the directors of the benefit company do not prepare and post the benefit report as required by the BCBCA and the regulations. There is a potential fine of up to $2,000 for individuals or $5,000 for persons other than individuals.
• Augmented fiduciary duty: The directors and officers of a benefit company will be required to act honestly and in good faith with a view to conducting the business in a responsible and sustainable manner and promoting the public benefits that the company has identified in its benefit provision. They must balance that public benefits duty against their duties to the company. (There is currently no guidance with respect to achieving this balance.) However, the amendments state that the public benefits duty does not create a duty on the part of directors or officers to persons who are affected by the company’s conduct or who would be personally benefitted by it.
• Enforcement and remedies where duty breached: Several significant provisions in the amendments relate to enforcement and remedies:
  • Shareholders are the only persons who are able to bring an action against a BCBCA benefit company’s directors and officers over an alleged violation of their duty relating to public benefits;
  • Only shareholders that, in the aggregate, hold at least 2% of the company’s issued shares may bring such an action (in the case of a public company, a $2 million shareholding, in the aggregate, will also suffice); and
  • The court may not order monetary damages in relation to a breach of that duty. Other remedies, such as removal or a direction to comply, would still be available.

À la prochaine…

« Benefit Corporation : une normativité de concurrence au service de la RSE », c’est sous ce titre que Margaux Morteo et moi-même avons publié un article dans la revue en ligne Éthique publique : Ivan Tchotourian et Margaux Morteo, « Benefit Corporation : une normativité de concurrence au service de la RSE », Éthique publique [En ligne], vol. 21, n° 1 | 2019, mis en ligne le 24 septembre 2019, consulté le 13 novembre 2019 .

Nous y développons la thèse d’une normativité de concurrence.

Plan :

1. Introduction

2. Certification B Corp.

2.1. Intérêts de la certification

2.2. Procédure de certification : les trois étapes

3. Réglementation étatsunienne : présentation de la Public Benefit Corporation

3.1. Définition de bénéfices publics dans les statuts

3.2. Assouplissement des devoirs fiduciaires

3.3. Instauration d’une super-majorité

3.4. Obligation de reporting renforcée

4. Nouvelle forme d’interaction normative

4.1. Normativité de concurrence

4.2. Avantages et inconvénients des normes concurrentes

5. Conclusion

Résumé :

Les entreprises à mission sociétale (dont la fameuse Benefit Corporation américaine) constituent une innovation majeure du droit des sociétés et de la responsabilité sociétale des entreprises (RSE). Poussée par la finance d’impact, la Benefit Corporation a la particularité de permettre à des sociétés par actions de poursuivre des fins lucratives et sociales. Cette étude s’intéresse à l’instrument normatif à la base de l’émergence de ces entreprises. Elle analyse l’interaction entre les normes pour démontrer qu’il y a hybridation autour d’une normativité originale de « concurrence ». La certification B Corp. constitue la première base normative de ces entreprises. Toutefois, le législateur américain de l’État du Delaware (mais également d’autres États américains) est venu contribuer à cette normativité en adoptant une législation consacrée à la Benefit Corporation. Cette étude met en lumière qu’en matière de Benefit Corporation, autorégulation et réglementation se concurrencent, en rupture avec l’opposition, la substitution, la supériorité ou la complémentarité entre normes traditionnellement soulignées dans la littérature.

À la prochaine…

Dans un article publié aujourd’hui, Mélissa Schweyer revient sur le thème de la Benefit Corporation pour en prôner une adoption au Canada : « Benefit Corporations for a Sustainable Economy » (TripleUndit, 20 janvier 2016).

In 2015, we witnessed what is possible when large groups of people come together to change the world. But with the adoption of both the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement, we have a lot of promises to keep and work to get done.

A sustainable economy is within our reach, but it will take the cooperation of multiple stakeholders, the investment of billions of funds and the dedication of the entire world.

Lobbyists, activists, scientists and politicians have already — quite successfully — mapped out some of the important policies that need to be adopted by governing bodies around the world in order to propel us into a sustainable economy by 2030.

(…) Any policy that can boost cooperation, facilitate multi-channel communications, incentivize information-sharing, strengthen scalable impact, create new sustainable capital, mitigate environmental degradation, motivate early adoption and provide long-term solutions are policies worth lobbying for.

Today, I’m lobbying for a policy that can do all of those things.

I strongly believe that governments should adopt policies that provide companies with the ability to register as purpose-driven corporations. Purpose-driven corporations are different from traditional for-profit companies and nonprofit organizations because they operate with a triple bottom line, equally valuing profits, people and the planet.

Legislative terminology refers to them as Benefit Corporations.

Pour rappel, le Barreau canadien avait pris position à l’été 2014 pour demander au gouvernement fédéral de faciliter la création des Benefit Corporation (ici).

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) has recommended that Parliament change the federal statute under which businesses are established to make it clear that corporations can pursue public benefit purposes beyond pure profit.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian