engagement et activisme actionnarial

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, article intéressant de Les Échos.fr « Les assemblées générales à huis clos ont porté atteinte aux droits des actionnaires » (24 novembre 2020).

Extrait :

Les assemblées générales (AG) 2021 se passeront-elles dans les mêmes conditions que les précédentes ? Les actionnaires qui n’ont cessé de déplorer depuis septembre d’avoir été privés de leurs droits fondamentaux (comme de révoquer ou de nommer un administrateur en séance) aux dernières AG attendent avec impatience l’ordonnance que doit publier le gouvernement . Ce qui ne devrait plus tarder car l’effet du précédent texte prend fin le 30 novembre. Or, une AG est prévue dès le 3 décembre – celle de Bonduelle.

Dans ce contexte, les actionnaires guettaient donc la publication du rapport de l’AMF (Autorité des Marchés Financiers) sur le gouvernement d’entreprise. Car ce rapport revient en détail sur la tenue des AG 2020. Le régulateur en tire « un bilan contrasté. »

À la prochaine…

Mme Boisseau de Les Échos publie une information bien intéressante pour la démocratie actionnariale : « Assemblées générales à huis clos : l’exécutif veut préserver les droits des actionnaires » (13 novembre 2020). À quand cette réaction au Québec et au Canada ?

Extrait :

Les actionnaires ne veulent surtout pas que les assemblées générales (AG) 2021 se tiennent dans les mêmes conditions que celles de 2020 . Pris de court en mars dernier par la pandémie du coronavirus, les pouvoirs publics ont autorisé leur tenue à huis clos, pour valider les comptes annuels, nommer des administrateurs et autoriser (parfois) le versement de dividendes. Une solution qui a privé les actionnaires de certains de leurs droits fondamentaux, comme de révoquer ou de nommer un administrateur en séance.

Depuis septembre, Better Finance, la fédération européenne des épargnants, la F2IC (Fédération des investisseurs individuels et des clubs), ou encore la SFAF (Société Française des Analystes Financiers) demandent au législateur et au régulateur des marchés financiers de réfléchir à une meilleure organisation des AG. L’Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF), qui doit rendre public très prochainement son rapport sur le gouvernement d’entreprise, va faire des propositions. Et surtout, Bercy a rédigé un projet d’ordonnance (la précédente ordonnance prise en mars prend fin le 30 novembre) qui tient compte de certaines de ces revendications.

À la prochaine…

Billet à découvrir sur le site de Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance pour y lire cet article consacré à la sortie de crise sanitaire et aux apports de la raison d’être et des critères ESG : « ESG and Corporate Purpose in a Disrupted World » (Kristen Sullivan, Amy Silverstein et Leeann Galezio Arthur, 10 août 2020).

Extrait :

Corporate purpose and ESG as tools to reframe pandemic-related disruption

The links between ESG, company strategy, and risk have never been clearer than during the COVID-19 pandemic, when companies have had to quickly pivot and respond to critical risks that previously were not considered likely to occur. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Survey 2020, published in January 2020, listed “infectious diseases” as number 10 in terms of potential economic impact, and did not make the top 10 list of risks considered to be “likely.” The impact of the pandemic was further magnified by the disruption it created for the operations of companies and their workforces, which were forced to rethink how and where they did business virtually overnight.

The radical recalibration of risk in the context of a global pandemic further highlights the interrelationships between long-term corporate strategy, the environment, and society. The unlikely scenario of a pandemic causing economic disruption of the magnitude seen today has caused many companies—including companies that have performed well in the pandemic—to reevaluate how they can maintain the long-term sustainability of the enterprise. While the nature and outcomes of that reevaluation will differ based on the unique set of circumstances facing each company, this likely means reframing the company’s role in society and the ways in which it addresses ESG-related challenges, including diversity and inclusion, employee safety, health and well-being, the existence of the physical workplace, supply chain disruptions, and more.

ESG factors are becoming a key determinant of financial strength. Recent research shows that the top 20 percent of ESG-ranked stocks outperformed the US market by over 5 percentage points during a recent period of volatility. Twenty-four out of 26 sustainable index funds outperformed comparable conventional index funds in Q1 2020. In addition, the MSCI ACWI ESG Leaders Index returned 5.24 percent, compared to 4.48 percent for the overall market, since it was established in September 2007 through February 2020. Notably, BlackRock, one of the world’s largest asset managers, recently analyzed the performance of 32 sustainable indices and compared that to their non-sustainable benchmarks as far back as 2015. According to BlackRock the findings indicated that “during market downturns in 2015–16 and 2018, sustainable indices tended to outperform their non-sustainable counterparts.” This trend may be further exacerbated by the effects of the pandemic and the social justice movement.

Financial resilience is certainly not the only benefit. Opportunities for brand differentiation, attraction and retention of top talent, greater innovation, operational efficiency, and an ability to attract capital and increase market valuation are abundant. Companies that have already built ESG strategies, measurements, and high-quality disclosures into their business models are likely to be well-positioned to capitalize on those opportunities and drive long-term value postcrisis.

As businesses begin to reopen and attempt to get back to some sense of normalcy, companies will need to rely on their employees, vendors, and customers to go beyond the respond phase and begin to recover and thrive. In a postpandemic world, this means seeking input from and continuing to build and retain the confidence and trust of those stakeholder groups. Business leaders are recognizing that ESG initiatives, particularly those that prioritize the health and safety of people, will be paramount to recovery.

What are investors and other stakeholders saying?

While current events have forced and will likely continue to force companies to make difficult decisions that may, in the short term, appear to be in conflict with corporate purpose, evidence suggests that as companies emerge from the crisis, they will refresh and recommit to corporate purpose, using it as a compass to focus ESG performance. Specific to the pandemic, the public may expect that companies will continue to play a greater role in helping not only employees, but the nation in general, through such activities as manufacturing personal protective equipment (PPE), equipment needed to treat COVID-19 patients, and retooling factories to produce ventilators, hand sanitizer, masks, and other items needed to address the pandemic. In some cases, decisions may be based upon or consistent with ESG priorities, such as decisions regarding employee health and well-being. From firms extending paid sick leave to all employees, including temporary workers, vendors, and contract workers, to reorienting relief funds to assist vulnerable populations, examples abound of companies demonstrating commitments to people and communities. As companies emerge from crisis mode, many are signaling that they will continue to keep these principles top of mind. This greater role is arguably becoming part of the “corporate social contract” that legitimizes and supports the existence and prosperity of corporations.

In the United States, much of the current focus on corporate purpose and ESG is likely to continue to be driven by investors rather than regulators or legislators in the near term. Thus, it’s important to consider investors’ views, which are still developing in the wake of COVID-19 and other developments.

Investors have indicated that they will assess a company’s response to the pandemic as a measure of stability, resilience ,and adaptability. Many have stated that employee health, well-being, and proactive human capital management are central to business continuity. Investor expectations remain high for companies to lead with purpose, particularly during times of severe economic disruption, and to continue to demonstrate progress against ESG goals.

State Street Global Advisors president and CEO Cyrus Taraporevala, in a March 2020 letter to board members, emphasized that companies should not sacrifice the long-term health and sustainability of the company when responding to the pandemic. According to Taraporevala, State Street continues “to believe that material ESG issues must be part of the bigger picture and clearly articulated as part of your company’s overall business strategy.” According to a recent BlackRock report, “companies with strong profiles on material sustainability issues have potential to outperform those with poor profiles. We believe companies managed with a focus on sustainability may be better positioned versus their less sustainable peers to weather adverse conditions while still benefiting from positive market environments.”

In addition to COVID-19, the recent social justice movement compels companies to think holistically about their purpose and role in society. Recent widespread protests of systemic, societal inequality leading to civil unrest and instability elevate the conversation on the “S” and “G” in ESG. Commitments to the health and well-being of employees, customers, communities, and other stakeholder groups will also require corporate leaders to address how the company articulates its purpose and ESG objectives through actions that proactively address racism and discrimination in the workplace and the communities where they operate. Companies are responding with, among other things, statements of support for diversity and inclusion efforts, reflective conversations with employees and customers, and monetary donations for diversity-focused initiatives. However, investors and others who are pledging to use their influence to hold companies accountable for meaningful progress on systemic inequality will likely look for data on hiring practices, pay equity, and diversity in executive management and on the board as metrics for further engagement on this issue.

What can boards do?

Deloitte US executive chair of the board, Janet Foutty, recently described the board as “the vehicle to hold an organization to its societal purpose.” Directors play a pivotal role in guiding

companies to balance short-term decisions with long-term strategy and thus must weigh the needs of all stakeholders while remaining cognizant of the risks associated with each decision. COVID-19 has underscored the role of ESG principles as central to business risk and strategy, as well as building credibility and trust with investors and the public at large. Boards can advise management on making clear, stakeholder-informed decisions that position the organization to emerge faster and stronger from a crisis.

It has been said before that those companies that do not control their own ESG strategies and narratives risk someone else controlling their ESG story. This is particularly true with regards to how an organization articulates its purpose and stays grounded in that purpose and ESG principles during a crisis. Transparent, high-quality ESG disclosure can be a tool to provide investors with information to efficiently allocate capital for long-term return. Boards have a role in the oversight of both the articulation of the company’s purpose and how those principles are integrated with strategy and risk.

As ESG moves to the top of the board agenda, it is important for boards to have the conversation on how they define the governance structure they will put in place to oversee ESG. Based on a recent review, completed by Deloitte’s Center for Board Effectiveness, of 310 company proxies in the S&P 500, filed from September 1, 2019, through May 6, 2020, 57 percent of the 310 companies noted that the nominating or governance committee has primary oversight responsibility, and only 9 percent noted the full board, with the remaining 34 percent spread across other committees. Regardless of the primary owner, the audit committee should be engaged with regard to any ESG disclosures, as well as prepared to oversee assurance associated with ESG metrics.

Conclusion

The board’s role necessitates oversight of corporate purpose and how corporate purpose is executed through ESG. Although companies will face tough decisions, proactive oversight of and transparency around ESG can help companies emerge from recent events with greater resilience and increased credibility. Those that have already embarked on this journey and stay the course will likely be those well-positioned to thrive in the future.

Questions for the board to consider asking:

How are the company’s corporate purpose and ESG objectives integrated with strategy and risk?

1. Has management provided key information and assumptions about how ESG is addressed during the strategic planning process?
2. How is the company communicating its purpose and ESG objectives to its stakeholders?
3. What data does the company collect to assess the impact of ESG performance on economic performance, how does this data inform internal management decision- making, and how is the board made aware of and involved from a governance perspective?
4. Does the company’s governance structure facilitate effective oversight of the company’s ESG matters?
5. How is the company remaining true to its purpose and ESG, especially now given COVID-19 pandemic and social justice issues?
6. What is the board’s diversity profile? Does the board incorporate diversity when searching for new candidates?
7. Have the board and management discussed executive management succession and how the company can build a diverse pipeline of candidates?
8. How will the company continue to refresh and recommit to its corporate purpose and ESG objectives as it emerges from the pandemic response and recovery and commit to accelerating diversity and inclusion efforts?
9. How does the company align its performance incentives for executive leadership with attaining critical ESG goals and outcomes?

À la prochaine…

Me Jessica Zhang propose un billet de blogue sur l’impact de la COVID-19 sur l’activisme actionnarial au Canada : « Impact of COVID-19 on Shareholder Activism » (7 avril 2020). Comme elle le rappelle aux CA, « Sharp declines in stock prices due to COVID-19 are making companies more vulnerable to shareholder activism and hostile attacks ».

Extrait :

Shareholder Activism in Canada

While shareholder activism is traditionally less prevalent in Canada than in the United States, Canada can be an attractive jurisdiction for shareholder activism due to its shareholder-friendly regulatory framework that includes:

• rights of shareholder to requisition meetings with a 5% ownership interest;
• ability of shareholders to communicate with up to 15 shareholders without the requirement to file and mail proxy solicitation materials or publicly disclose their solicitation intentions;
• ability of shareholders to accumulate 10% of a company’s shares before disclosing their interest;
• ability of shareholders to include proposals on the election of directors in management proxy circulars;
• entitlement to shareholder lists and ability to be reimbursed for costs associated with proxy contests; and
• fewer structural defences in Canada than in the United States.

Preparing for Shareholder Activism

While the primary focus of many companies in the current environment is on their employee health and safety, business continuity and financial stability, boards of directors and management should not lose sight of the potential increases in shareholder activism and be prepared to defend against any hostile attacks.

1. Shareholder Communication and Engagement. Shareholder communication and engagement is crucial to maintaining shareholder confidence. It is important for companies to be able to respond to shareholders in a meaningful manner, address concerns and misinformation and ensure open and transparent communication with their shareholders. A corporation’s board and management should prepare key messages with respect to the impacts of COVID-19 on the company, what steps the company is taking to mitigate the impacts and risks, and address its liquidity needs, the overall health of its business, and the company’s ability to rebound from the crisis. Companies should utilize public disclosure as an opportunity to engage with shareholders and communicate results, strategy, objectives and opportunities in a clear manner to enhance shareholder confidence. It is also important to ensure that the messages delivered provide a transparent assessment of the current and anticipated future impacts of COVID-19 on the company and not to create unrealistic and unreasonable expectations for shareholders.
2. Activist Response Team. Companies should consider establishing an internal team dedicated to dealing with activist shareholders and developing immediate and comprehensive responses to potential shareholder activism. This team should be composed of the most knowledgeable internal resources, including the chief financial officer, general counsel, and additional senior personnel from the finance, investor relations, and corporate communications departments. It should also leverage external resources, including external counsel, proxy solicitation firms, and public relations firms to assist in defending the corporate strategy and objectives, and to co-ordinate coherent and timely responses to shareholders.
3. Monitor and Assess. Management should regularly monitor and review the company’s shareholder base, objectives and investment strategies of the shareholders as well as changes in trading patterns in the company’s stock (e.g. stock surveillance), in order to stay alert to early signs of an opportunistic acquiror. Additionally, management should conduct a comprehensive assessment of the company’s vulnerabilities to shareholder activism and identify any activists that could be potentially interested in targeting the company.
4. Shareholder Rights Plan. A shareholder rights plan, also known as a poison pill, is a defensive measure used by public companies to defend against hostile takeover attempts by third parties. Shareholder rights plans in Canada have not historically been effective in stopping hostile bids but have been effective in providing boards with more time to consider strategic alternatives. In preparation for shareholder activism or takeover threats, companies that do not already have a shareholder rights plan may consider preparing one and keeping it “on the shelf” (fully drafted and ready for adoption). TSX requires the adoption of a shareholder rights plan to be ratified by shareholders within six months of adoption. Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) will generally support a shareholder-approved rights plan that conforms to its “new generation” rights plan best practice guidelines. Similarly, Glass Lewis will generally support shareholder rights plans adopted in response to COVID-19 and the related economic crisis if the plans have a duration limited to one year or less and the company discloses a sound rationale for adoption of the plan as a result of COVID-19.
5. Advance Notice Requirements. An advance notice provision affords protection against a “surprise attack” at or shortly before a shareholders’ meeting as it requires shareholders to provide advance notice to the company if they wish to propose nominees to the board of directors. In preparation for shareholder activism or takeover threats, companies may consider adopting an advance notice board policy or provisions in the articles or bylaws that require advance notice of any intention to propose nominees for directors. ISS and Glass Lewis will generally support advance notice provisions that meet their guidelines.
6. Corporate Governance. Corporate governance weaknesses is one of the attributes that tend to attract activist shareholders. Companies should ensure corporate governance standards are frequently evaluated and strictly followed to prevent activists from exploiting weaknesses or inconsistencies. Management should stay up-to-date on the evolving legal and regulatory developments as well as voting recommendations by proxy advisory firms, such as ISS and Glass Lewis, and consider how to best comply with best practices guidelines.
7. Employee Investment. Employees are generally among the company’s most loyal investors. The decline in stock prices can be an opportunity for companies to revise existing or implement new incentive programs to encourage employee investment in the company by enhancing stock purchase plan provisions and amending long-term incentive compensation plans.

À la prochaine…