Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale

Intéressant article du professeur étatsunien Stephen Bainbridge sur la fameuse décision américaine Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. : « Why We Should Keep Teaching Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. » (UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 22-05, 5 avril 2022). Le titre ne laissera personne indifférent puisqu’il est exactement à l’opposé de celui de la professeure Lynn Stout publié en 2008 !

À la prochaine…

Alors que tout le monde évoque le changement de paradigme lié à l’émergence d’un « stakeholderism », le Wall Street Journal lance un pavé dans la mare sous la plume notamment du professeur Bebchuk : rien n’a vraiment changé ! « ‘Stakeholder’ Capitalism Seems Mostly for Show » (Wall Street Journal, 6 août 2020)

Extrait :

Notwithstanding statements to the contrary, corporate leaders are generally still focused on shareholder value. They can be expected to protect other stakeholders only to the extent that doing so would not hurt share value.

That conclusion will be greatly disappointing to some and welcome to others. But all should be clear-eyed about what corporate leaders are focused on and what they intend to deliver.

Pour un commentaire du Board Agenda, voir « Stakeholderism: Study finds evidence in short supply ».

À la prochaine…

Gavin Hinks revient de manière intéressante sur un rapport récemment publié par Sustainability Board Report mettant en lumière l’ouverture des grandes entreprises américaines à leurs parties prenantes : « Covid-19 pandemic ‘has accelerated shift to stakeholderism’ » (Board Agenda, 1er juin 2020).

Pour accéder au rapport commenté : ici.

Extrait :

There have been many claims that stakeholder capitalism is the future for business, particularly since the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis.

But one group says it now has evidence that stakeholder priorities are beginning to take root, driven by the pandemic. The Sustainability Board Report (SBR), a not-for-profit campaign group, has looked at disclosures from the world’s largest 100 companies to find examples of stakeholder-led decision-making. The report says it found good evidence that a shift towards “stakeholderism” is under way, with 37% of the firms examined revealing “specific corporate action” to respond to stakeholder interests since the advent of Covid-19.

Caution is needed here. The group has no pre-pandemic data for comparison. However, it remains confident that its findings reveal pro-stakeholder moves that were non-existent until recently.

(…) The SBR looked at policies disclosed affecting employees, customers, suppliers and community. The biggest pandemic response appears to have been directed at communities, with 71% of firms disclosing specific action. Johnson & Johnson, for instance, announced a $300m programme aimed at frontline workers.

Customers were the next largest group to receive support, from 37% of firms; employees from 28%; and suppliers seemingly receiving scant support from just one in ten (11%) of the companies checked.

(…) There has even been much speculation that Covid-19 would do much to give the movement energy, given that shutdowns and infection caused companies to reflect much more about their relationship with employees, customers and the wider public. In March, Harvard professor Bill George wrote in Fortune magazine: “If there is any consequence resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, it’s the acceleration of the shift to stakeholder capitalism away from companies’ singular emphasis on shareholders.”

However, the SBR concedes that the data may support one claim that companies cynically use stakeholder capitalism as a PR tool to help cover business as usual. The fact that employees and communities are the greatest focus for “stakeholder” policies means companies could be using it to cover their concern with “perception and reputation”.

“One could conclude that some companies continue to pay lip service to stakeholderism while fundamentally maintaining a short-term profit orientation,” it says.

Evidence may be building but there is some way to go before it can be said that stakeholderism is a permanent fixture of business. Agitation by investment managers may help, but many managers will struggle to see how they will juggle conflicting interests.

That said, the confluence of drivers is perhaps greater now than at any time since the end of the Second World War. More recently, stakeholder capitalism was—and remains—part of the fight against climate change. Business will be called upon to remain at the forefront of that campaign until long after Covid-19 is under control. Stakeholder capitalism is likely to remain a focus of that effort.

À la prochaine…

UCLA School of Law vient de publier un rapport d’une dizainede pages sur la gestion du capital humain et son intégration dans la gouvernance des entreprises : « Corporate Governance : The growing Importance of Human Capital Management » (avril 2020).

Extrait :

1. Over the last several years, investors and proxy advisory firms have increasingly focused their attention on environmental, sustainability and governance (ESG) and human capital management (HCM) issues. While there is no one definition of HCM, the term is widely used to cover a very broad range of workforce matters that are of concern to investors and the public as they focus on building long-term value and reducing business and reputational risks. These concerns have resulted in calls for enhanced company disclosures about their HCM practices and processes.

2. Under Delaware and federal law, directors have no duties that are specifically focused on HCM. However, under Delaware law and that of many other states, directors have duties of care, loyalty and oversight that can under certain circumstances apply to HCM matters and can result in director liability.

3. While federal securities laws and rules contain several corporate disclosure requirements that apply to employees and touch on HCM issues, current laws and rules are not as robust or focused as many investors would like and have proposed. In response to rulemaking and other investor requests, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed amendments to its disclosure rules that would expressly require companies to describe their human capital resources to the extent that they are material to an understanding of a company’s business as a whole.

4. Some public companies have already articulated board responsibilities for oversight of HCM matters; some have renamed and expanded the responsibilities of their compensation committees to reflect their expanded focus; and some have disclosed their HCM polices and efforts in their securities law filings and other publications.

5. Separate and apart from the legal requirements that apply to corporate board duties and corporate disclosure requirements, there are important business, governance and reputational reasons for boards and companies to care about and address HCM matters. 6. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to board oversight of HCM matters, areas for possible board attention are (i) diversity and inclusion, (ii) employee satisfaction and engagement, (iii) succession and talent management, (iv) attrition and retention, and (v) ethics, workforce culture and risk.

À la prochaine…

Le Business Roundtable (association regroupant les plus grands chef d’entreprise américains) a pris une position audacieuse le 19 août 2019 : celle de redéfinir l’objectif des grandes entreprises (« Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation »).

While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders. We commit to:

• Delivering value to our customers. We will further the tradition of American companies leading the way in meeting or exceeding customer expectations.

• Investing in our employees. This starts with compensating them fairly and providing important benefits. It also includes supporting them through training and education that help develop new skills for a rapidly changing world. We foster diversity and inclusion, dignity and respect.

• Dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers. We are dedicated to serving as good partners to the other companies, large and small, that help us meet our missions.

• Supporting the communities in which we work. We respect the people in our communities and protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses.

• Generating long-term value for shareholders, who provide the capital that allows companies to invest, grow and innovate. We are committed to transparency and effective engagement with shareholders.

Each of our stakeholders is essential.

Voir le communiqué de presse ici

À la prochaine…

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, la sénatrice Élisabeth Warren vient d’introduire un projet de loi très ambitieux (!) : le S.3348 – Accountable Capitalism Act.

Plusieurs points saillants ressortent de ce projet :

• La création d’un Office of United States Corporations.
• La possibilité de s’enregistrer auprès de cet organisme fédéral (alors que jusqu’à maintenant, rappelons-le, l’enregistrement se faisait auprès des États et notamment celui du Delaware).
• Les salariés représenteraient 40 % du CA.
• L’entreprise devrait poursuivre une mission sociétale.
• La redéfintion des devoirs des administrateurs et hauts-dirigeants.

Pour en savoir plus, lire cet article ici du The Guardian.

Extrait du projet de loi

SEC. 5. Responsibilities of United States corporations.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) GENERAL PUBLIC BENEFIT.—The term “general public benefit” means a material positive impact on society resulting from the business and operations of a United States corporation, when taken as a whole. (…)

(1) IN GENERAL.—The charter of a large entity that is filed with the Office shall state that the entity is a United States corporation.

(2) CORPORATE PURPOSES.—A United States corporation shall have the purpose of creating a general public benefit, which shall be—

(A) identified in the charter of the United States corporation; and

(B) in addition to the purpose of the United States corporation under the articles of incorporation in the State in which the United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable.

(c) Standard of conduct for directors and officers.—

(c) Standard of conduct for directors and officers.—

(1) CONSIDERATION OF INTERESTS.—In discharging the duties of their respective positions, and in considering the best interests of a United States corporation, the board of directors, committees of the board of directors, and individual directors of a United States corporation—

(A) shall manage or direct the business and affairs of the United States corporation in a manner that—

(i) seeks to create a general public benefit; and

(ii) balances the pecuniary interests of the shareholders of the United States corporation with the best interests of persons that are materially affected by the conduct of the United States corporation; and

(B) in carrying out subparagraph (A)—

(i) shall consider the effects of any action or inaction on—

(I) the shareholders of the United States corporation;

(II) the employees and workforce of—

(aa) the United States corporation;

(bb) the subsidiaries of the United States corporation; and

(cc) the suppliers of the United States corporation;

(III) the interests of customers and subsidiaries of the United States corporation as beneficiaries of the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation;

(IV) community and societal factors, including those of each community in which offices or facilities of the United States corporation, subsidiaries of the United States corporation, or suppliers of the United States corporation are located;

(V) the local and global environment;

(VI) the short-term and long-term interests of the United States corporation, including—

(aa) benefits that may accrue to the United States corporation from the long-term plans of the United States corporation; and

(bb) the possibility that those interests may be best served by the continued independence of the United States corporation; and

(VII) the ability of the United States corporation to accomplish the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation;

(ii) may consider—

(I) other pertinent factors; or

(II) the interests of any other group that are identified in the articles of incorporation in the State in which the United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable; and

(iii) shall not be required to give priority to a particular interest or factor described in clause (i) or (ii) over any other interest or factor.

(2) STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR OFFICERS.—Each officer of a United States corporation shall balance and consider the interests and factors described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) in the manner described in paragraph (1)(B)(iii) if—

(A) the officer has discretion to act with respect to a matter; and

(B) it reasonably appears to the officer that the matter may have a material effect on the creation by the United States corporation of a general public benefit identified in the charter of the United States corporation.

(3) EXONERATION FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY.—Except as provided in the charter of a United States corporation, neither a director nor an officer of a United States corporation may be held personally liable for monetary damages for—

(A) any action or inaction in the course of performing the duties of a director under paragraph (1) or an officer under paragraph (2), as applicable, if the director or officer was not interested with respect to the action or inaction; or

(B) the failure of the United States corporation to pursue or create a general public benefit. (…)

(d) Right of action.—

(1) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY OF CORPORATION.—A United States corporation shall not be liable for monetary damages under this section for any failure of the United States corporation to pursue or create a general public benefit.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Le professeur Bernard S. Sharfman a publié il y a deux ans un article très intéressant sur la primauté de la valeur actionnariale en droit des sociétés : « Shareholder Wealth Maximization and Its Implementation Under Corporate Law », 66 Fla. L. Rev. 389 (2015). À redécouvrir !

This Article tackles the question of when courts should intervene in the decision-making of a corporation and review a corporate business decision for shareholder wealth maximization. This Article takes a very traditional approach to answering this question. It notes with approval that courts have historically been very hesitant to participate in the process of determining if a corporate decision is wealth maximizing. Courts have restrained themselves from interfering with board decision-making because they understand that it is the board of directors (the board) in coordination with executive management that has the best information and expertise to determine if a corporate decision meets the objective of shareholder wealth maximization. Nevertheless, the courts have found that they can play a wealth-enhancing role if they focus on making corporate authority accountable when there is sufficient evidence to show that the corporate decision was somehow tainted. Therefore, the courts will interpose themselves as a corrective mechanism when a board decision is tainted with a conflict of interest, lack of independence, or where gross negligence in the process of becoming informed in the making of a business decision is implicated.

When judicial review veers from this traditional approach, the court’s opinion must be closely scrutinized to see if the court had valid reasons for implementing a different approach. Such a veering from the traditional path can be found in the Delaware Chancery case of eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Newmark, a case where the court, in its review of a shareholder rights plan under the Unocal test, required the directors to demonstrate that the corporate policy being defended by the poison pill enhanced shareholder value. As argued here, the court was wrong in its approach, and in general courts should never be in the position of adding this additional component of analyzing board decisions for shareholder wealth maximization unless the business decision was tainted with a conflict of interest, lack of independence, or gross negligence.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian