Je vous invite à regarder cette capsule-vidéo de Mme Charlotte Michon sur le devoir de vigilance. Elle revient sur le projet de directive sur le devoir de vigilance de la Commission européenne et le rapport de la mission d’information parlementaire d’évaluation de la loi française, tous deux publiés le 23 février 2022.
Belle étude qu’offre l’Union européenne sur les devoirs des administrateurs et la perspective de long-terme : « Study on directors’ duties and sustainable corporate governance » (29 juillet 2020). Ce rapport document le court-termisme de la gestion des entreprises en Europe. En lisant les grandes lignes de ce rapport, on se rend compte d’une chose : on est loin du compte et la RSE n’est pas encore suffisamment concrétisée…
Résumé :
L’accent mis par les instances décisionnelles au sein des entreprises sur la maximisation à court terme du profit réalisé par les parties prenantes, au détriment de l’intérêt à long terme de l’entreprise, porte atteinte, à long terme, à la durabilité des entreprises européennes, tant sous l’angle économique, qu’environnemental et social. L’objectif de cette étude est d’évaluer les causes du « court-termisme » dans la gouvernance d’entreprise, qu’elles aient trait aux actuelles pratiques de marché et/ou à des dispositions réglementaires, et d’identifier d’éventuelles solutions au niveau de l’UE, notamment en vue de contribuer à la réalisation des Objectifs de Développement Durable fixés par l’Organisation des Nations Unies et des objectifs de l’accord de Paris en matière de changement climatique. L’étude porte principalement sur les problématiques participant au « court-termisme » en matière de droit des sociétés et de gouvernance d’entreprises, lesquelles problématiques ayant été catégorisées autour de sept facteurs, recouvrant des aspects tels que les devoirs des administrateurs et leur application, la rémunération et la composition du Conseil d’administration, la durabilité dans la stratégie d’entreprise et l’implication des parties prenantes. L’étude suggère qu’une éventuelle action future de l’UE dans le domaine du droit des sociétés et de gouvernance d’entreprise devrait poursuivre l’objectif général de favoriser une gouvernance d’entreprise plus durable et de contribuer à une plus grande responsabilisation des entreprises en matière de création de valeur durable. C’est pourquoi, pour chaque facteur, des options alternatives, caractérisées par un niveau croissant d’intervention réglementaire, ont été évaluées par rapport au scénario de base (pas de changement de politique).
This study for the European Commission focuses on due diligence requirements to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for abuses of human rights, including the rights of the child and fundamental freedoms, serious bodily injury or health risks, environmental damage, including with respect to climate. It was conducted by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (lead), Civic Consulting and LSE Consulting. Through desk research, country analyses, interviews and surveys it identifies Market Practices (Task 1) and perceptions regarding regulatory options. The Regulatory Review (Task 2), including twelve Country Reports, shows that UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ standard of due diligence is increasingly being introduced into legal standards or proposed in Member States. The Problem Analysis, policy background and intervention logic concludes with the definition of four options for regulatory proposals (Task 3): No change (Option 1), new voluntary guidelines (Option 2), new reporting requirements (Option 3) and mandatory due diligence as a legal standard of care (Option 4). Option 4 includes sub-options limited to sector and company size, and enforcement through state-based oversight or judicial / non-judicial remedies. The assessment of impacts of regulatory options (Task 4) considers economic impacts, impacts on public authorities, social, human rights and environmental impacts.
ecoDa supports the fundamental concept of Corporate purpose. However the European Commission should propose policy principles and refrains from trying to standardize directors’ duties among Member States and sectors. ecoDa believes that soft law through Corporate Governance codes is more suitable to adapt to an evolving context.
Acknowledging that shareholders define the company’s purpose does not mean neither that the interests of other stakeholders should not be taken into account by the directors when fulfilling their duties towards the company. On the contrary, there is no doubt that boards are taking such interests into account to an extent deemed consistent with the company’s purpose. Basically, there is a sound business case for more social and environmental involvement. Understanding consumers’ expectations and employees’ aspiration is becoming a prerequisite to become more innovative, to attract the right talents and to ensure sustainability in the long run. It is obvious that companies cannot be run in a sustainable manner if boards ignore the context in which they operate.
Therefore, the European Commission should refrain from trying to harmonize the fundamental concept of corporate interest and directors’ duties due to the very important legal differences across Europe and the different contexts across sectors. No law should hold directors accountable to several “principals”, arguably with often mutually contradictory interests. The board can solely be accountable to the company for the discharge of its duty to promote the purpose of the company. If the criteria for liability are not clearly defined, the boards will be liable to nobody for nothing or to everybody for anything. “Being liable to everybody means being liable to nobody”. Legal certainty is the basis of a competitive economic environment.
Bonjour à toutes et à tous, l’ESMA vient de publier la réponse à sa consultation sur l’intégration des risques et des facteurs de durabilité (ici).
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published the responses received to its Consultations on integrating sustainability risks and factors in MiFID II, and in the UCITS Directive/AIFMD.
Le bien informé Financial Times (« Brussels deal to give shareholders more clout on directors’ pay« , 8 décembre 2016) vient de révéler une information qui fera réagir les lectrices et lecteurs de ce blogue. L’UE serait sur le point d’adopter un accord donnant plus de pouvoir aux actionnaires en matière de rémunération des dirigeants, l’objectif étant de contrecarrer le court-termisme dont feraient preuve les CA.
Pour les points essentiels, voici ce qui a été décidé :
Under the deal struck between negotiators from the European Parliament and Slovakia, which holds the EU’s presidency, shareholders will get a vote on companies’ pay policy at least every four years.
The agreement reached will leave individual nations to decide whether to opt for a system of binding shareholder votes on pay, or to allow votes to be advisory. However, even an advisory vote against pay structures would require companies to present a revised policy for another vote at the next general meeting of shareholders.
Investors will also get an advisory say on listed companies’ annual remuneration reports, which provide an individual breakdown of pay and benefits given to individual directors over the last financial year.
The legal regime applicable to groups of companies in the European Union has been discussed for many years. National legislations have been adopted in a certain number of member states, and new initiatives are being considered by the European Commission and in academic writing. The central issues in groups of companies is the relationship between the controlling shareholder, often the parent company and the subsidiaries, and the potential for abuse to the detriment of the latter’s minority shareholders and creditors. Several answers have been formulated, going from a duty of the parent to indemnify the subsidiary for the charges imposed by the parent, to the acceptance of these charges provided they result in some benefit to the subsidiary and provided they do not endanger the subsidiary’s solvency. In a third approach, these issues may be solved by other common company law, e.g. on the basis of the unfair prejudice provisions. With respect to shareholder and creditor protection, a comparative analysis concludes that there is no need for additional regulatory safeguards. The present approaches indicate that group relations are often characterised by conflicts of interest. Therefore, it is proposed to develop a standard for dealing with these, especially under the form of Related Party Transactions. The specific conditions for dealing with intragroup related party transactions are submitted for further discussion.
