autres publications | Page 10

Michael J. Mauboussin et Alfred Rappaport ont publié il y a quelques jours un article dans la Harvard Business Review qui revient sur la valeur actionnariale : « Reclaiming the Idea of Shareholder Value ». Les auteurs insistent sur l’importance de définir et de communiquer clairement l’objectif des entreprises.

Corporate governance issues are constantly in the headlines. Activist investors challenge management strategies. Investors and others ask why companies binge on buybacks while skimping on value-creating investment opportunities. But discussions of corporate governance invariably miss the real problem: most public companies have extensive governance procedures but no governing objective. As a result, there is no sound basis for stakeholders, including shareholders, to assess the performance of the company and its executives.

Corporate governance is a system of checks and balances that a company designs to ensure that it faithfully serves its governing objective. The governing objective is the cornerstone upon which the organization builds its culture, communications, and choices about how it allocates capital. Think of it as a clear statement of what a company is fundamentally trying to achieve.

Today there are two camps that aim to define the idea of governing objective, but neither is effective. The first believes the company’s goal is to maximize shareholder value. Countries that operate under common law, including the United States and the United Kingdom, lean in this direction.

The second advocates that the company balance the interests of all stakeholders. Countries that operate under civil law, including France, Germany, and Japan, tend to be in this camp.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

The conversation relaie l’introduction de la Conférence internationale de gouvernance CIG 2016 à l’Université de Montpellier : « Gouvernance et gouvernementalité à l’heure du big data : quels enjeux pour les entreprises ? ».

La 15e conférence internationale de gouvernance (CIG 2016) de l’AAIG (Association Académique Internationale de Gouvernance) qui s’est tenue les 17 et 18 mai 2016 à l’IAE de Montpellier a été l’occasion de débattre sur les nouveaux enjeux de la gouvernance d’entreprise. Les chercheurs en gouvernance sont au carrefour de plusieurs disciplines de management.

À l’origine, les recherches en gouvernance se sont principalement appuyées sur la théorie de l’agence (…) et centrées sur la grande entreprise de type managérial, où la relation plus ou moins conflictuelle entre actionnaires et dirigeants est prééminente. Ces problématiques classiques ne sont pas figées, elles sont régulièrement revisitées et restent d’actualité, comme en témoigne l’étendue des sujets abordés lors la CIG 2016, mais aussi l’actualité récente (…).

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Sur le blogue de l’Université d’Oxford, Idoya Ferrero-Ferrero et Robert Ackrill publie une synthèse de leur dernier article : « Is Europeanization Though Soft-Law a Reality in Corporate Governance Policies? ». La question qu’il aborde est simple mais très pertinente pour les juristes : Est-ce que la soft law européenne en matière de gouvernance d’entreprise fait évoluer les cadres juridiques étatiques (et ce, sans avoir besoin d’édicter des règles contraignantes !) ? La réponse est oui…

Europeanization addresses the impacts of EU membership on national politics and policies, via both the processes by which EU decision-making manifests itself at the national level; and the outcomes of that EU decision-making. Over time, as EU membership and policy scope have expanded, new approaches to policy-making have been developed and, therefore, new channels created by which Europeanization can occur. One such has been the use of ‘soft law’ processes. These have allowed for greater discussion of ‘sensitive’ policy issues, where national policy sovereignty continues to dominate, given that these discussions do not result in legal texts binding on the member states. That said, the purpose of soft law is still to deliver national policy change. Which begs the question – can they work?

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

C’est à cette question que s’attaquent Virgile Chassagnon et Xavier Hollandts dans un article intitulé : « Who are the owners of the firm: shareholders, employees or no one? » (Journal of Institutional Economics, 2014, Vo. 10, pp 47-69).

Voici le résumé :

The issue of firm ownership is an ongoing debate. For several decades, contractarian theory has undoubtedly shaped the academic debate in both law and economics. Proponents of this approach suggest that shareholders can legitimately be considered the owners of a firm because they hold shares. This approach, though attractive, is legally incorrect. Legal scholars have noted that a corporation cannot legally belong to shareholders or other stakeholders; no one owns the firm (and a corporation). The question of firm ownership masks the following crucial issue: Who should govern the firm? In this article, after returning to the theoretical debate on firm ownership and explaining why a firm cannot be owned, we shall analyze power as the core of firm governance. This approach is a potentially relevant and accurate way to address the problems of specific human investment, collective creation and productive (consummate) cooperation in modern firms.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Beau rapport du cabinet Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP qui montre que la RSE ne peut plus être ignoré par les entreprises : « Governance Goes Green ».

It’s not just us tree-huggers. Increasingly, institutional investors, pension plans and regulators are calling for (and in some cases requiring) companies to assess and report on the sustainability of their business operations and investments. Climate change and other environmental concerns are at the forefront of these calls. Institutional investors are focusing on sustainable business practices – a broad category in which environmental and social risks, costs and opportunities of doing business are analyzed alongside conventional economic considerations – as a key factor in long-term financial performance. Sustainability proponents are looking to boards of directors and management to integrate these considerations into their companies’ long-term business strategies.

Éléments essentiels à retenir :

• Institutional investors increasingly regard environmental and other sustainability issues as strategic matters for companies.
• Shareholders continue to submit environmental and other sustainability proposals, successfully garnering attention and prompting companies to make changes, despite their failure to win majority votes.
• Independent organizations are developing standards for sustainability and environmental reporting to provide investors with consistent metrics for assessing and comparing the sustainability of companies’ practices.
• Sustainability and environmental reporting remains in the SEC’s sights as it evaluates the effectiveness of current disclosure requirements and considers changes for the future.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian