Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale | Page 12

Dans un article du Financial Post de janvier 2019, Terence Corcoran revient sur les thèses de Milton Friedman pour les appuyer au travers d’arguments intéressants. Je vous invite à lire son analyse dans l’article suivant : « Milton Friedman is right, profit is a company’s only purpose » (Financial Post, 19 janvier 2019)

Petit extrait :

There is nothing in the redefine-capitalism movement that was not identified almost 50 years ago by Friedman as a danger to markets and economic freedom. The concepts and principles reviewed in his 1970 essay, ignored by Mayer and all the reformers, are as relevant today as they were then.

Generally, Friedman would have no problem with corporations that engage in virtue signalling. For example, Gillette’s “toxic masculinity” ad is an obvious attempt to sell products by piggybacking on a controversial social issue. Gillette is acting out of self-interest.

Friedman declined to denounce such corporate attempts to “generate goodwill” and draw attention to their products, although he warned that the strategic pursuit of social approval and conflict amounted to “hypocritical window-dressing.”

It is utterly false to portray corporations as manufacturers of profits at the expense of society. Today’s corporations, from Microsoft Corp. to GM to Amazon.com Inc., survive by producing goods and services that feed, clothe, transport, entertain and otherwise provide benefits to billions of people.

The corporate adoption of social purposes would take focus away from these core business purposes. Worse, expanding the number of corporate purposes places an undesirable undemocratic framework on corporate executives. As Friedman saw it in 1970, giving social and political responsibilities to business leaders installs unelected corporate managers in positions of unelected power

À la prochaine…

Bonsoir à toutes et à tous, Larry Fink se fait encore entendre : « Le plus gros actionnaire au monde appelle les entreprises à définir leur « raison d’être » » (Les Echos, janvier 2019)…. pour le plus grand bien de la RSE. Cette fois, c’est la raison d’être que le PDG de BlackRock souhaite pousser !

Extrait :

Depuis des années, Larry Fink, le patron de BlackRock, le plus gros actionnaire de la planète, demande aux entreprises de penser à long terme. En 2018, il avait déjà appelé les patrons à oeuvrer pour le bien commun. Une révolution. Cette année, ce financier, soutien fidèle du parti démocrate, va plus loin. Il exhorte les entreprises dans lesquelles il investit à définir leur « raison d’être » .

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…