Gouvernance

L’University of Oxford, l’University of California, Berkeley, BrightHouse, la British Academy, Federated Hermes EOS et Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz ont publié un excellent rapport dont je recommande fortement la lecture : « Enacting Purpose within the Modern Corporation: A Framework for Boards of Directors ». En plus de revenir sur le purpose, ce rapport offre une distinction entre des notions souvent confondues…

Extrait

• « Purpose. Purpose States « Why » an Organization Exists: As Professor Colin Mayer, one of our co-chairs puts it, “the purpose of business is to solve the problems of people and planet profitably, and not profit from causing problems”. This statement deliberately leaves open the question of the specific purpose of each organisation, but does deliberately and carefully demand a reason for existence alongside the pursuit of profit. Purpose sets out the reasons why the organisation conducts its various activities, articulating what societal challenge, need or benefit the organisation seeks to address. This sets it apart from the three other important concepts for organisations below. Once this purpose has been debated and formally agreed, the board should not only publish it but also ensure that its internal governance and external reporting evaluate its activities and the outcomes generated against its stated purpose.

• « Values. Values Describe « How » the Organization Behaves : These are often short and punchy bullet points, detailing specific expectations and principles of interaction within the organisation’s internal or external operating environment. More importantly they should be a call to action. These values should inform and guide the specific day to day behaviours and decisions taken by every member of the organisation. They should be articulated in a way that the intent is clearly understood, and the board of directors should ensure that the organisational culture embraces these values and enables them to be put into practice by every member of the organisation. Boards of directors also need to ensure that employees are empowered to ensure that key suppliers act in compliance with the organization’s stated values.

• « Mission. Mission Sets Out « What » the Organisation Does: It captures the day to day activities of the organisation, defining quite literally what business it is in. It is directly linked to the strategy of the organisation and is underpinned by the values deployed to deliver the mission. It is very practical and descriptive in nature. Mission therefore sets out specifically and practically what the organisation aims to do in pursuit of its stated purpose. Mission statements provide an opportunity for boards of directors to set out what they specifically intend to deliver to each of the organisation’s different key stakeholder groups.

• « Vision. Vision Describes « Where » the Organisation Intends to Have Impact: It describes the outcome that the organisation wants to see from the successful delivery of its stated purpose. Put simply, vision captures what success looks like. By its nature, vision statements are aspirational, large scale and usually long-term.

À la prochaine…

Bel article proposé par la professeure Tsuk Mitchell, Dalia : « From Dodge to eBay: The Elusive Corporate Purpose » (Virginia Law & Business Review, 2019, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 155-211) ! Cet article revient sur la fameuse mission des entreprises en confrontant les visions économiques et socio-politiques qui expliquent une lecture différentes de son contenu.

Résumé :

This article examines the history of the law of corporate purpose. I argue that the seemingly conflicting visions of corporate social responsibility and shareholder wealth maximization, which characterize contemporary debates about the subject, are grounded in two different paradigms for corporate law — a socio-political paradigm and an economic-financial one. Advocates of the socio-political paradigm have historically focused on the power that corporations could exercise in society, while those embracing the economic-financial paradigm expressed concerns about the power that the control group could exercise over the corporation’s shareholders. Over the course of the twentieth century, scholars have debated the merits of each of these paradigms and the concerns associated with them, while judges drew upon the academic and, more importantly, the managerial sentiments and concerns of the era to attach a purpose to corporate law’s doctrine, that is, the ultra vires doctrine in the early twentieth century, the enabling business judgment rule by mid-century, and the laws applicable to evaluating managerial responses to hostile takeovers at the century’s end. Ultimately, the cases seemingly addressing corporate purpose did not endorse wealth maximization or social responsibility as objectives. Rather, they empowered corporate managers to set corporate goals without interference from shareholders or the courts.

À la prochaine…

Les 2/3 des CA ne comprennent pas la stratégie de leur entreprise ! Ça fait peur…

Dans son blogue, Diane Bérard (ici) se fait le relais des résultats d’un sondage mené en 2013 par la firme McKinsey auprès de 772 administrateurs.

Ils pressent la direction pour qu’elle affiche des résultats à court terme au détriment de la création de valeur à long terme. C’est ce que nous apprend une autre étude de McKinsey, celle-là datée de 2014, auprès de 604 cadres et administrateurs à travers le monde.

Donc, parce que le CA comprend mal la stratégie de l’entreprise qu’il accompagne, la façon dont elle crée de la valeur et les bouleversements auxquels son secteur fait face, il garde le nez collé sur ce qu’il comprend : le présent. Du coup, le CA empêche la direction de regarder dans le rétroviseur et de faire ses angles morts. Conduite dangereuse, accidents en perspective…

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Selon une étude du cabinet Norton Rose Fulbright, les CA doivent davantage penser comme les activistes. Tel est le sens d’un article publié dans le Financial Post intitulé « Boards should think more like activist investors: Norton Rose Fulbright » (21 septembre 2015).

Directors are doing a better job when it comes to corporate governance, but that may not be enough to keep activist shareholders at bay, according to a white paper published Monday by law firm Norton Rose Fulbright. Boards have to think more like activists and can do so by focusing on value creation at all times, says the paper, which was produced in collaboration with RBC Capital Markets and The Boston Consulting Group. Directors, many of whom are former executive at other companies, should regularly engage with senior managers to “critically examine” strategy development and value creation alternatives.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian