Gouvernance

En voilà une belle question que soulève Beate Sjåfjell dans son articile sur SSRN : « How Company Law has Failed Human Rights – And What to Do about It » (3 février 2020).

Résumé :

This article discusses three questions: What drives business to ignore human rights, or even worse, consciously undermine the achievement of human rights? Given the state of affairs of business and human rights, why is there not a quick regulatory fix to the problems that we see? In light of the failure of business and of regulation so far, what can be done? 

The article posits that reform of company law is key to business respect for human rights, as an intrinsic element of the transition to sustainability. The article outlines how company law can facilitate sustainable business, and concludes with some reflections on the drivers for change that make it possible to envisage that the necessary reform of company law will be enacted.

À la prochaine…

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, je vous invite à lire l’article suivant publié sur l’Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation : « Everything Old is New Again—Reconsidering the Social Purpose of the Corporation » (par Gregory J. Holly, 12 mars 2019).

Petit extrait :

At a time when trust in US business is at an all-time low, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer, the idea that the corporation should be run solely for the benefi of the shareholders is being questioned, including by large institutional shareholders

While the social interests that a corporation serves and the interests of shareholders are often viewed as being in tension, when viewed outside of a short-term perspective, social interests and shareholder interests are often aligned. After all, corporations do not succeed by consistently neglecting the expectations of employees, customers, suppliers, creditors and local communities, but neither do corporations attract necessary capital from equity markets if they fail to meet shareholder expectations of a competitive return. Increased focus by investors on the broader societal impacts of their portfolio companies may help assuage underlying concerns about the responsible use of significant economic power by corporations—and large institutional investors—but a common set of appropriate metrics that look beyond shareholder return have not yet developed. Until they do, shareholder value will remain the primary polestar for assessing boards and managers and holding them accountable. At the same time, it is clearly in the common interest of investors and corporations to address societal expectations, reduce tensions and build trust in our important economic institutions. Institutional investors can play a key role in helping corporations navigate this difficult terrain by emphasising in specific terms the key environmental and social factors that are meaningful to their investment decisions.

À la prochaine…

Dans « Shareholder primacy — going beyond the shareholder », Catherine Maxwell propose un billet intéressant que je relaie ici. Ce billet amène une réflexion sur la primauté de la norme actionnariale dans une perspective australienne.

Extraits :

The debate between those who advocate that the purpose of the company is to only to make profits for shareholders (shareholder primacy), and those who consider that a company should take into account a broader range of interests has a venerable history. We have seen advocates for both sides of the debate active in the last few weeks. We have also seen discussions about whether Australian law should change to include provisions which specifically permit directors to consider non-shareholder interests as has been done in parts of the US and the UK.

Shareholder Primacy in changing times Jason Harris has recently revisited the issue in his paper Shareholder Primacy, in Changing Times. Writing in the context of recent events, he has produced a comprehensive summary of both the history of the debate and the chain of legal authorities. He concludes ‘When board members make decisions they include a variety of considerations. They do so not simply because the law directs them to, but because of the commercial benefit in doing so. Shareholder primacy is not seriously under threat by these changing times, because it has only been one part of the story’. I tend to agree with him.

À la prochaine…

Dans le Financial Times, Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson propose un article ô combien enrichissant montrant que les choses commencent à changer en matière de gouvernance d’entreprise : « For 50 years, companies have been told to put shareholders first. Now even their largest investors are challenging that consensus ». L,article est intitulé « Beyond the bottom line: should business put purpose before profit? » (4 janvier 2019) et je vous le recommande chaudement.

In sum, the purpose-first  movement is still far from ubiquitous and lacking in reliable data, but is the pursuit of something beyond profit worse than Friedman’s singular focus on shareholder returns? Encouraging companies to have a clear mission, consider their communities and steer their innovative impulses to good ends may not add up to systemic change, but it is surely better than the alternative.Critics such as Giridharadas would rather society concentrate on restoring politics as the forum through which we address its challenges. But for as long as politicians are viewed with more suspicion than chief executives and investors, the purposeful capitalists may be our best hope.Consumers, employees and campaigners are already learning how effective they can be in pushing companies to balance other stakeholders’ concerns with their returns to shareholders. Companies, in turn, have discovered that doing so can improve their reputations, persuade investors that they have a sustainable strategy and, ultimately, benefit their bottom line.When corporate America is paying chief executives 168 times as much as the median employee, steering the windfall from a historic tax cut to options-boosting buybacks and consolidating into ever larger groups, executives claiming to be solving society’s ills can expect pushback.The pursuit of purpose will not end the questions over how much chief executives should earn, what wages and taxes companies should pay or how much corporate power society will tolerate. Nor will investors stop judging chief executives by their share prices. But 50 years of putting shareholders first left corporations little trusted by non-shareholders and many are ready to try something different.As companies’ self-interest converges with the interests of other stakeholders, those who would improve the world have a chance to get some of the world’s most powerful instruments for change onside. They should grasp the opportunity business’s moral money moment has given them.

À la prochaine…

Ivan