engagement et activisme actionnarial

Bel édito d’Olivier De Guerre sur Philtrust intitulé : « De la Responsabilité des Conseils d’Administration vis-à-vis des actionnaires ». Une belle actualité qui soulève des questionnements sérieux.

Extrait

Visiblement les membres des conseils d’administration de Stellantis et de Danone ne semblent pas à l’écoute de leurs actionnaires… Le premier considère que l’appréciation de la rémunération des dirigeants est de sa compétence exclusive et ne relève pas de celle des actionnaires, la loi au Pays-Bas ne l’imposant pas…Le second considère normal qu’un Président d’honneur nommé par le Conseil (et non pas l’Assemblée) siège à tous les conseils d’administration s’il le souhaite et ce, alors même qu’il n’a pas été élu par les actionnaires.

Ces deux décisions de conseils d’administration de grandes sociétés cotées montrent bien que leurs membres ne se sentent pas « redevables » vis-à-vis des actionnaires qui les ont élus. Au Pays-Bas, ils ne sont révocables que par un juge ; en France ils peuvent l’être à tout moment en Assemblée Générale.

Cette situation est la conséquence du mode de nomination des administrateurs, présentée au vote en Assemblée Générale. Toute candidature externe, non préalablement agréée par le Conseil, est toujours vue comme une agression vis-à-vis de la société, alors que ce devrait être un acte normal en Assemblée Générale… Le process de nomination d’un administrateur, même s’il s’est professionnalisé depuis plusieurs années, passe toujours par une validation préalable par le Président. Les actionnaires votent très rarement contre ces propositions, ce qui amène naturellement les administrateurs indépendants – non liés à un actionnaire important – à se sentir « cooptés » par le Conseil et son Président plutôt qu’élus par les actionnaires. Bien peu d’entre eux avec qui nous avons échangé sur ce point précis se sentent investis de représenter les actionnaires…

Nos entreprises font partie du corps social et se doivent d’être exemplaires pour gérer les capitaux qui leur sont confiés par les actionnaires et ce dans l’intérêt de toutes les parties prenantes. Les impacts négatifs liées à l’activité industrielle, humaine, considérés jusqu’à récemment comme une « nécessité » ne sont plus acceptables aujourd’hui. Et cela oblige les conseils d’administration élus par les actionnaires à se mettre à leur écoute, mais aussi à celle de leurs salariés, clients, fournisseurs ainsi que de l’ensemble des parties prenantes pour comprendre les points d’amélioration ou de changement stratégique attendus.

A cet égard, le refus de la société TotalEnergies d’accepter le dépôt de deux résolutions sur les enjeux climatiques (soit en faisant pression pour le retrait de l’une, soit en refusant tout simplement l’autre) nous rappelle la situation que nous avions connue en 2011 lors du dépôt d’une résolution demandant des informations sur les risques que l’exploitation très polluante et donc controversée des sables bitumineux au Canada faisait peser sur le groupe TotalEnergies.

À la prochaine…

Article à lire de M. Ashwell dans Corporate Secretary : « The threat of employee shareholder activism » (7 août 2020). Intéressante perspective sur l’activisme poussé de manière indirecte par la situation des salariés des entreprises.

Extrait :

Facing an employee-backed or employee-led shareholder proposal generates media attention and causes embarrassment for senior management. But are these recent examples a flash in the pan, or should more companies be bracing for employee-shareholder activism?

A confluence of circumstances

Pat Tomaino is director of socially responsible investing at Zevin Asset Management and has filed shareholder proposals at Alphabet and Amazon, as well as other large technology companies, in recent years. He worked with an employee group at Alphabet, following a mass employee walkout at Google in 2018.

‘It’s a strategy that we as impact investors want to leverage more in the future, but it really depends on a confluence of circumstances,’ he says. ‘We’re not in the business of instigating employee activity inside companies – that’s not the role of investors. We have a stake in the financial outlook of the company. We’re not creating employee activism but, where we do see that it exists, we take that into account. What are employees asking for and why are they acting that way? What signal should we take for how companies are handling their long-term ESG goals?’

Tomaino says that when he has talked to employee groups at large technology companies about shareholder proposals, there’s a feeling that they have tried other avenues of feedback and activism internally. ‘These employees had tried the usual channels and were looking for levers to make change,’ he says. ‘They’d done direct action, they’d talked to the press and they’d noticed that there’s power through shareholder proposals.’

In Germany, employee-shareholder activism is much more established. Labor groups have experimented with shareholder proposals since the early 1990s, according to an academic report from Natascha van der Zwan, assistant professor of public administration at Leiden University. One particularly notable example she highlights is the Deutsche Telecom annual meeting in 2007, when around 1,000 employees entered the meeting to voice discontent about increased working hours and pay cuts as part of a corporate restructuring. Employee-shareholders reportedly signed their voting rights over to local labor unions to oppose the restructuring, as part of a broader campaign involving employee walkouts and labor union protests.

For board directors in the US, Gillian Emmett Moldowan, partner at Shearman & Sterling, says it’s never been more important to receive meaningful updates about nonexecutive employees.

‘Employee campaigns of any nature get significant press attention,’ she explains. ‘Boards have historically been more separated from non-executive employee issues, whether it’s compensation or workers’ issues, or how employees feel about the firm as a whole. I would encourage boards to get an understanding from those who report into the board of human capital management risk and enterprise risks, as well as an understanding of what the company is doing to assess and mitigate those risks.

‘If boards have not historically received information about employee satisfaction and employee sentiment about the company management, then getting hold of that information is a good first step.’

Structural issues

Instances of recent employee shareholder activism have defining traits that may not be replicated elsewhere. For instance, Tomaino explains that many Alphabet employees involved in the shareholder action feel aggrieved at how they think the company’s mission has changed. Google’s motto in its IPO documents was ‘Don’t be evil’, but it has since dropped the slogan and employees have expressed concerns about the direction the company is moving, including in its bidding for national defense contracts.

Aalap Shah, managing director at Pearl Meyer, highlights several structural issues that may make companies more at risk of employee shareholder activism in the future.

‘Part of the issue is the power some companies have given to their employees through equity,’ he explains. ‘In addition, many of these companies are recruiting from the same talent pool, where there’s a desire to work for a company that has some sort of positive purpose. There is significantly more desire [on the part of] millennials and Gen Z to be part of an organization that has purpose, and you’re going to have to compete for that top talent by giving them equity.’

Tomaino says employees with large amounts of their personal net worth tied up in company stock will view themselves as engaged investors as much as employees. But Moldowan says this shouldn’t make companies think differently about granting stock options to employees as part of their compensation packages.

‘Shareholders can bring a proposal if they qualify to do so under the proxy rules, and those shares can be bought on the market – they need not come from an equity compensation plan,’ she says. ‘Not giving equity awards won’t stop an employee acquiring equity by other means.’

An Amazon employee group recently filed a comment letter with the SEC expressing concerns and opposition to proposed changes to Rule 14a-8, on the grounds that planned shifts to share ownership and proposal resubmission thresholds would make it harder for employee groups to advocate for change.

All of the interviewees for this article agree that it’s important for boards to receive information about employee sentiment and for boards or management to be seen to respond appropriately when employee groups express significant levels of discontent. Tomaino acknowledges that it’s unlikely large passive investors would vote in favor of employees and against management – unless the proposal was on something truly egregious – but that a proposal can help cause embarrassment for management that may drive change.

As Covid-19 shines a greater light on the treatment and recognition of employees, and the Business Roundtable’s statement equally prompts stakeholders to question companies when they feel they’re not being given a fair hearing, this may not be the last we see of employee participation in shareholder proposals in the US.

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…

Novethic consacre une intéressante étude sur l’engagement actionnarial intitulée « Engagement actionnarial, les investisseurs responsables face aux dilemmes des AG 2020 », véritable cartographie des acteurs en présence et des enjeux de cette pratique.

Extrait :

L’étude détaille les différents rapports de force entre les acteurs en présence. Avec d’un côté, les investisseurs institutionnels, détenteurs de l’épargne ou des fonds de retraite, qui, pour les plus responsables, veulent s’assurer de la pérennité et de la croissance de leurs actifs sur le long terme. De l’autre, les sociétés de gestion, qui travaillent pour plusieurs investisseurs institutionnels et qui, dans leur stratégie d’engagement actionnarial, doivent faire la synthèse des souhaits de chacun de leurs clients. Enfin, se trouvent les entreprises cotées, pas toutes enclines à écouter les alertes et les revendications de leurs actionnaires de long terme. 

Mais l’urgence climatique, de même que les risques grandissants liés aux inégalités sociales, poussent les acteurs financiers à l’action. La crise du Covid-19, avec son rôle d’amplificateur des risques environnementaux, sociaux et de gouvernance (ESG), s’est également invitée au programme des AG. Et malgré le huis clos des assemblées générales imposé par les mesures sanitaires, des victoires ont été remportées.

(…) La France semble avoir pris le virage, cette année, d’un engagement actionnarial plus actif, alors que les relations entre actionnaires et grandes entreprises cotées y étaient jusqu’alors plutôt feutrées. La réglementation pousse notamment les investisseurs institutionnels à plus de transparence sur leur pratique de l’engagement. Le mouvement mérite toutefois de prendre encore de l’ampleur. Selon l’étude de Novethic, près de la moitié des 100 plus grands investisseurs institutionnels français ne remplissent pas encore leur obligation, prévue dans la loi Pacte, de publier leur politique d’engagement actionnarial et un rapport sur son application.

Reste à transformer l’essai. De grandes sociétés de gestion demeurent encore sur la touche, en n’accordant pas toujours leurs votes lors des assemblées générales, à leurs propres déclarations sur le climat. Plusieurs études l’ont montré, comme celle d’InfluenceMap qui montre que des sociétés de gestion comme BlackRock ou Vanguard ne votent en général pas en faveur des résolutions externes sur le climat. De ce côté-là aussi, cela change : en début d’année, BlackRock a annoncé son adhésion à Climate Action 100+ et son intention d’avoir une politique de vote plus active. La saison des AG 2021 devrait donc s’avérer intéressante.

À la prochaine…

Le quotidien Les Échos.fr vient de faire tomber la nouvelle : « La SEC renonce à sa proposition phare pour limiter le pouvoir les agences de conseil en vote ».

Le gendarme des marchés américains ne veut plus imposer aux agences de conseil en vote de soumettre leurs analyses aux entreprises cotées avant de les envoyer à leurs clients. En revanche, elle veut que les investisseurs arrêtent de voter aux assemblées générales en suivant aveuglément leurs recommandations.

À la prochaine…