devoirs des administrateurs

Le 2 août 2020, Christiaan de Brauw a publié un intéressant billet sur l’Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance sous le titre « The Dutch Stakeholder Experience ».

Extrait :

Lessons learned

The Dutch experience shows that the following lessons are key to make the stakeholder-oriented governance model work in practice.

Embed a clear stakeholder mission in the fiduciary duties of the board

To have a real stakeholder model, the board must have a duty to act in the interests of the business and all the stakeholders, not only the shareholders. In shareholder models there may be some room to consider stakeholder interests. For example, in Delaware and various other US states, the interests of stakeholders other than shareholders may be considered in the context of achieving overall long-term shareholder value creation. In US states with constituency statutes, the board’s discretion is preserved: the interests of stakeholders other than shareholders can be, but do not have to be, taken into account. A meaningful stakeholder model requires the board to act in the interests of the business and all stakeholders. This is a “shall” duty, in the words of Leo Strine and Robert Eccles (see Purpose With Meaning: A Practical Way Forward, Robert G. Eccles, Leo E. Strine and Timothy Youmans, May 16, 2020). Rather than allowing for the possibility that all stakeholders’ interests will be taken into account; it should create a real duty to do so. Since 1971, boards of Dutch companies have had such a “shall” duty to follow a stakeholder mission, similar to that of a benefit corporation in, for example, Delaware.

The stakeholder duty must be clear and realistic for boards in the economic environment in which they operate. To define the contours of such a mission in a clear and practical way is not easy, as the journey of the Dutch stakeholder model shows. Today, the Netherlands has a meaningful and realistically defined fiduciary duty for boards. The primary duty is to promote the sustainable success of the business, focused on long-term value creation, while taking into account the interests of all stakeholders and ESG and similar sustainability perspectives. These principles are broadly similar to the corporate purpose and mission proposed by Martin Lipton and others (see On the Purpose of the Corporation, Martin Lipton, William Savitt and Karessa L. Cain, posted May 27, 2020).

Critics of the stakeholder model sometimes point to the ambiguity and lack of clarity of such a pluralistic model. The developments of the Dutch stakeholder model since its inception show that a pluralistic model can work in practice. By now, Dutch boards’ overriding task is adequately clear and aligned with what is typically expected of a company’s executives: pursuing the strategic direction that will most likely result in long-term and sustainable business success. The Dutch stakeholder model also has a workable roadmap to deal with stakeholders’ interests, particularly if they diverge or cannot all be protected fully at the same time, which necessarily results in trade-offs between stakeholders. A realistic approach to governance acknowledges that a stakeholder model does not mean that boards can or should seek to maximize value for all the stakeholders equally and at the same time. It is simply unrealistic to simultaneously pay (and progressively increase) dividends, increase wages and improve contract terms, while also promoting the success of the business. The Dutch interpretation of the stakeholder model, as developed through practice over decades, boils down to the focus on the sustainable success of the business and long-term value creation. As said above, stakeholders are protected by the board’s duty to prevent disproportionate or unnecessary harm to any class of stakeholders. Boards should avoid or mitigate such harm, for example, by agreeing “non-financial covenants” in a takeover. This makes sense as a way to protect stakeholder interests in a realistic manner, much more so than merely requiring boards—without any further guidance—to create value for all the stakeholders.

A stakeholder-oriented model should also be modern and flexible enough to address and incorporate important developments. The Dutch model is especially well positioned to embrace ESG and similar sustainability perspectives. For example, the Dutch company DSM has successfully illustrated this, while being profitable and attractive for investors. There is growing appreciation that being a frontrunner in ESG is required for sustainable business success. In addition to the fact that ESG is required for continuity of the business model and can often give a company a competitive edge, stakeholders increasingly require it. Simply “doing the right thing”, as an independent corporate goal, is more and more seen as important by (new millennial) employees, customers, institutional investors and other stakeholders.

There is no standard test to determine whether a business has achieved sustainable success. There will be different ways to achieve and measure success for different companies, depending on the respective circumstances. Therefore, the test will always have to be bespoke, implemented by the board and explained to stakeholders.

The Dutch stakeholder model has proven to work quite well in times of crisis, such as today’s Covid-19 crisis, as it bolsters the board’s focus on the survival and continuity of the business. The board must first assess whether there is a realistic chance of survival and continuity of the business. If not, and if insolvency becomes imminent, the board’s duties transform to focus on creditors’ interests, such as preventing wrongful trading and the winding down or restarting of the business in line with applicable insolvency/restructuring proceedings. Driven by the economic reality and the need to survive, in times of crisis, boards typically have more freedom to do what it takes to survive: from pursuing liquidity enhancing measures, implementing reorganizations, suspending dividends to shareholders and payments to creditors and so on. The success of the business remains the overriding aim, and in some cases harm to one or more classes of stakeholders may need to be accepted. In addition, in a true stakeholder model, in times of crisis there may not be sympathy for corporate raiders or activists (so-called “corona profiteers” in the current case) who want to buy listed companies on the cheap. A just say not now defense in addition to the just say no defense will readily be available for boards who are occupied with dealing with the crisis and revaluating the best strategic direction. This idea that during the Covid-crisis protection against activists and hostile bidders may be needed seems to be understood as well by, for example, ISS and Glass Lewis, evidenced by their willingness to accept new poison pills for a one year duration (see, for example, ISS and Glass Lewis Guidances on Poison Pills during COVID-19 Pandemic, Paul J. Shim, James E. Langston, and Charles W. Allen, posted on April 26, 2020).

Teeth to protect the stakeholder mission and appropriate checks and balances

The Netherlands has adopted a model in which matters of strategy are the prerogative of the executive directors under supervision of the non-executive directors or, in the still widely used two-tier system, of the management board under supervision of the supervisory board. Similar to the discretion afforded to directors under Delaware’s business judgment rule, a Dutch board has a lot of freedom to choose the strategic direction of the company. In a dispute, the amount of care taken by the board in the decision-making process will be scrutinized by courts, but normally objectively reasonable decisions will be respected. In the Dutch model the board is the captain of the ship; it is best equipped to determine the course for the business and take difficult decisions on how to serve the interests of stakeholders. Generally, the board has no obligation to consult with, or get the approval of, the shareholders in advance of a decision.

At the same time, in recognition of the significant power that boards have in the Dutch stakeholder model, there should be checks and balances to ensure the board’s powers are exercised in a careful manner, without conflicts of interest and without entrenchment. Non-executive/supervisory directors will need to exercise critical and hands-on oversight, particularly when there are potential conflicts of interest. Further, shareholders and other stakeholders are entitled to hold boards to account: boards need to be able to explain their strategic decisions. Shareholders can use their shareholder rights to express their opinions and preferences. Shareholders can also pursue the dismissal of failing and entrenched boards. Boards need regular renewed shareholder mandates through reappointments. The courts are the ultimate guardian of the stakeholder model. The Dutch Enterprise Chamber at the Amsterdam Court of Appeals, which operates in a comparable manner to the Delaware Chancery Court, is an efficient and expert referee of last resort.

The stakeholder model should not convert to a shareholder model in takeover scenarios. The board should focus on whether a takeover is the best strategic option and take into account the consequences for all the stakeholders. In most cases, the best strategic direction for the business will create the highest valuation of the business. But, and this is a real difference with shareholder models, it should be acknowledged that the stand-alone (or other best strategic) option can be different from the strategic option favored by a majority of the shareholders and the option that creates the most shareholder value. This principle was confirmed by the Dutch Enterprise Chamber in 2017 in the AkzoNobel case.

A meaningful stakeholder model requires teeth. The right governance structures need to be put in place to create and protect the long-term stakeholder mission in the face of short-term market pressure. The reality—in the Netherlands as well as in the US—is that shareholders are the most powerful constituency in the stakeholder universe, with the authority to replace the board. In Dutch practice, various countervailing measures can be used to protect the stakeholder mission. A commonly used instrument is the independent protection foundation, the Dutch poison pill. The independent foundation can exercise a call option and acquire and vote on preference shares. It can neutralize the newly acquired voting power of hostile bidders or activists and is effective against actions geared at replacing the board, including a proxy fight. Once the threat no longer exists, the preference shares are cancelled. These measures have been effective, for example, against hostile approaches of America Movil for KPN (2013) and Teva for Mylan (2015).

Foster a stakeholder mindset, governance and environment

Perhaps the most important prerequisite for a well-functioning stakeholder model is the actual mindset of executives and directors. This mindset drives how they will use their stakeholder powers. Fiduciary duties—also in a stakeholder model—are “open norms” and leave a lot of freedom to boards to pursue the strategic direction and to use their authority as they deem fit. The prevailing spirit and opinions about governance are important, as they influence how powers are interpreted and exercised. As an example, the Dutch requirement that boards need to act in the interest of the company and its business dates from 1971, but that did not prevent boards in the 2000s from seeing shareholders as the first among equals. Today, the body of ideas about governance in the developed world is tending to converge towards stakeholder-oriented governance. This seems to indicate a fundamental change in mindset, not merely a fashionable trend or lip service. Board members with a stakeholder conviction should not be afraid to follow their mission, even if it runs counter to past experience or faces shareholder opposition. Of course, the future will hold the ultimate test for the stakeholder model. Can it, in practice, deliver on its promise to create sustainable success and long-term value and provide better protection for stakeholders? If so, this will create a positive feedback loop in which more boards embrace it.

Stakeholder-based governance models remain works in progress. In order to succeed in the long term, models that grant boards the authority to determine the strategy need to stay viable and attractive for shareholders. Going forward, boards following a stakeholder-based model will likely need to focus more on accountability, for example by concretely substantiating their strategic plans and goals and, where possible, providing the relevant metrics to measure their achievements. In reality, stakeholder models are already attractive for foreign investors: about 90% of investors in Dutch listed companies are US or UK investors. In addition, developments in the definition of the corporate purpose will further refine the stakeholder model. In the Netherlands, there has been a call to action by 25 corporate law professors who argue that companies should act as responsible corporate citizens and should articulate a clear corporate purpose.

To make stakeholder governance work, ideally, all stakeholders are committed to the same mission. It is encouraging that key institutional investors are embracing long-term value creation and the consideration of other stakeholders’ interests, for instance by supporting the New Paradigm model of corporate governance and stewardship codes to that effect. However, the “proof of the pudding” is whether boards can continue to walk the stakeholder talk and pursue the long-term view in the face of short-term pressure, either through generally accepted goals and behavior or, if necessary, countervailing governance arrangements. Today, it is still far from certain whether institutional investors will reject pursuing a short-term takeover premium, even where they consider the offer to be undervalued or not supportive of long-term value creation. Annual bonuses of the deciding fund manager may depend on accepting that offer. Until the behavior of investors in such scenarios respects the principle of long-term value creation, appropriate governance protection is important to prevent a legal pathway for shareholders to impose their short-term goals. Therefore, even in jurisdictions where stakeholder-based approaches have been embraced, and are actually pursued by boards, governance arrangements might need to be changed to make the stakeholder mission work in practice. Clear guidance for boards is needed on what the stakeholder mission is and how to deal with stakeholders’ interests, as well as catering for adequate powers and protection for boards.

The Dutch model, which requires a company to be business success-driven, have a “shall duty” to stakeholders that applies even in a sale of the company, and that recognizes that corporations are dependent on stakeholders for success and have a corresponding responsibility to stakeholders, has been demonstrated to be consistent with a high-functioning economy. By highlighting the Dutch system, however, I do not mean to claim that it is unique. For policymakers who are considering the merits of a stakeholder-based governance model, the Dutch system should be seen as one example among many corporate governance systems in successful market economies (such as Germany) that embrace this form of stakeholder-based governance. There is likely no one-size-fits-all approach; each jurisdiction should find the tailor-made model that works best for it, like perhaps the introduction of the corporate purpose in the UK and France. In any event, there is a great benefit in exchanging ideas and learning from experiences in different jurisdictions to find common ground and best practices in order to increase the acceptance and appreciation of stakeholder-oriented governance models.

US governance practices have been, and are, influential around the world. In the 2000s the pendulum in developed countries, including to some extent in the Netherlands, clearly swung in the direction of shareholder-centric governance as championed in the US. In the current environment, if the US system’s focus on shareholders is not adjusted to protect stakeholder interests, it may over time perhaps become an outlier among many of the world’s leading market economies that in one way or the other have adopted a stakeholder approach. Adjustment towards stakeholder governance seems certainly possible in the US, for example through the emerging model of corporate governance, the Delaware Public Benefit Corporation. The benefit corporation seems to have many if not all of the key attributes of the Dutch system and could provide a promising path forward if American corporate governance is to change in a way that makes the US model truly focused on the long-term value for all stakeholders. The question for US advocates of stakeholder governance is whether they will embrace it, or adopt another effective governance change, and make their commitment to respect stakeholders rea

À la prochaine…

Dans Board Agenda, M. Lekvall publie un article intéressant intitulé : « Company purpose and profit are not mutually exclusive » (28 février 2020).

Extrait :

The first regards how the concept of a company’s purpose is defined and applied. Traditionally this has been understood as the reason(s) why the company was once started by its founders and why it is currently owned and run by its incumbent shareholders.

This usually—but far from always—includes to make money for the shareholders, but may also involve restrictions and side conditions for the promotion of this aim such as what kind of business to pursue (or not pursue), acceptable risk exposure, etc., as well as due regard of the interests of a range of other “stakeholders” such as employees, customers, suppliers, etc. as well as the society at large.

In real life most companies—and certainly those listed on a stock exchange—have some sort of multidimensional purpose involving the creation of value for the shareholders, while also taking a range of other stakeholder interests duly into regard in order to preserve its long-term “licence to operate” in the eyes of the surrounding society.

The second remark regards the question of who should determine and articulate the company’s purpose. In the current debate this prerogative sometimes appears assigned to the board of the company (or occasionally even to be defined in law) rather than to its shareholders.

This is quite an extreme proposition that would involve a far-reaching transfer of power from the shareholders to the board, thereby largely stripping the owners of the control of their company. In fact it would entail the reversal of much of the achievements of modern corporate governance over the last half-century or so, whereby power has successively been taken back from too often undisciplined and self-seeking boards to the owners. Let’s not allow this unfortunate genie out of the bottle again!

The third remark has to do with the accountability of board directors. The possibility to hold directors legally to account for the discharge of their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders is a cornerstone of modern corporate governance. However, widening this to applying to a broader range of “stakeholders”, as appears to be a widespread view in the debate, would in reality risk to amount to accountability to none. A board held to account for poor performance in terms of some stakeholder interests could always point at having given priority to those of others.

In summary, the realisation of these propositions would amount to no less than a fundamental shift of paradigm with potentially devastating consequences for the governance of companies and the efficiency of the market economy. The good news, however, is that to do so appears largely as an unwarranted overkill.

À la prochaine…

Bel article de Les Échos qui continue la réflexion sur la loi PACTE et le droit des sociétés : « Raison d’être, entreprise à mission, intérêt élargi… quels engagements et risques ? » (24 septembre 2019).

Extrait :

Une possible suppression du statut

Le statut de société à mission, également prévu par la loi Pacte , est plus engageant. Pour Bruno Dondero, avocat associé au sein du cabinet CMS Francis Lefebvre Avocats, la démarche est loin d’être anodine : «  Si un dirigeant se contente d’inscrire sa démarche dans les statuts, et qu’il ne fait rien pour prendre en compte les enjeux sociaux ou environnementaux dans ses choix, ou que son comportement est contraire à ses engagements, le ministère public ou toute personne intéressée, comme un fournisseur, un client ou une organisation associative, pourra demander la suppression de la mention », prévient l’avocat. Les risques qui pèsent sur le dirigeant sont-ils aussi importants pour la raison d’être ? Pas si sûr. «  Les conséquences juridiques de cette nouvelle notion sont assez incertaines. Cela dépend en partie de la façon dont la raison d’être est rédigée dans les statuts, tout en sachant que les associés pourront la modifier ou la supprimer. Plus elle est précise, plus elle sera contraignante  », estime Nicolas Borga. Mais une raison d’être définie de façon excessivement large pourrait également avoir des effets pervers tant son champ d’application serait vaste et tant elle donnerait prise à interprétation. 

Des labels pour sortir du lot

Une entreprise, dont la raison d’être serait de promouvoir le travail en France, qui déciderait de fermer une usine et de la délocaliser dans un pays où les coûts de production sont moins élevés, pourrait être chahutée. «  Une association pourrait se plaindre des effets d’une telle décision. Mais pourra-t-on reprocher à cette société d’avoir méconnu sa raison d’être lorsqu’elle sera en mesure d’établir qu’il en allait de sa survie et que son intérêt social commandait la prise d’une telle décision ? C’est improbable, poursuit Nicolas Borga. La raison d’être pourrait donc plus s’apparenter à un outil marketing. » Pour éviter qu’elle ne se limite à un effet de mode, sans lien avec la stratégie, les entreprises peuvent se tourner vers des labels. Des agréments comme Esus (entreprise solidaire d’utilité sociale), le label Lucie, ou B Corp, dont l’objectif est d’identifier et de faire progresser les entreprises qui intègrent à leurs activités des objectifs sociaux et environnementaux, vont réellement prendre de l’ampleur et devenir le moyen le plus évident de repérer les entreprises qui s’engagent.

Le séminaire à la maîtrise de Gouvernance de l’entreprise (DRT-7022) dispensé à la Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval entend apporter aux étudiants une réflexion originale sur les liens entre la sphère économico-juridique, la gouvernance des entreprises et les enjeux sociétaux actuels. Le séminaire s’interroge sur le contenu des normes de gouvernance et leur pertinence dans un contexte de profonds questionnements des modèles économique et financier. Dans le cadre de ce séminaire, il est proposé aux étudiants depuis l’hiver 2014 d’avoir une expérience originale de publication de leurs travaux de recherche qui ont porté sur des sujets d’actualité de gouvernance d’entreprise. C’est dans cette optique que s’inscrit cette publication qui utilise un format original de diffusion : le billet de blogue. Cette publication numérique entend contribuer au partager des connaissances à une large échelle (provinciale, fédérale et internationale). Le présent billet est une fiche de lecture réalisée par M^mes Léna-Lydia Djemili et Bèlè Rose de Lima Tchamdja et M. Alexis Langenfeld. Ces derniers présentent le fameux texte de 1932 de Merrick Dodd « For Whom are Corporate Managers Trustees? » et le mettent en perspective. Je vous en souhaite bonne lecture et suis certain que vous prendrez autant de plaisir à le lire que j’ai pu en prendre à le corriger.

Ivan Tchotourian

Dans son article « For Whom are Corporate Managers Trustees? »[1], Merrick Dodd Jr (professeur à la Harvard Law School) défend la thèse selon laquelle les administrateurs sont les mandataires de l’entreprise et non des actionnaires[2] leur permettant de prendre en compte l’intérêt des parties prenantes. Le professeur Merrick Dodd contestait la vision d’Adolph A. Berle qui faisait des administrateurs les mandataires des actionnaires[3] pour chercher un profit maximum pour ces derniers. L’opposition entre les deux auteurs est connue comme le « Berle/Dodd debate » et a beaucoup influencée le droit des sociétés par actions.

Le professeur Merrick Dodd démontre qu’il est bénéfique pour une entreprise de prendre en compte l’intérêt des parties prenantes (le public et les salariés) et avance que les dirigeants s’engageant dans cette direction ne font rien d’illégal.

Trois idées fortes

Le professeur Merrick Dodd forme son argumentation autour de trois idées principales : le changement des opinions du public et des praticiens; la limitation du profit dans les entreprises d’intérêt public; et le fait que l’entreprise doit être vue comme une personne à part entière.

Le professeur Merrick Dodd avance que l’opinion publique soutient ses idées en réclamant que les entreprises prennent en compte d’autres intérêts que ceux des seuls actionnaires, notamment ceux des salariés pour leur éviter de vivre le chômage[4]. Or, l’opinion publique faisant la Loi, le législateur devrait apporter son appui à sa thèse. Le professeur Merrick Dodd constate également que l’opinion de certains professionnels de la gestion d’entreprise est conforme à sa thèse[5]. Ces derniers préconisent la prise en compte des intérêts de l’ensemble des personnes participant à la vie de l’entreprise : actionnaires, salariés, public, État…

Le professeur Merrick Dodd fait aussi état de dispositions particulières touchant les entreprises exerçant dans des domaines d’intérêt public[6]. En règlementant la concurrence entre ces entreprises, leurs tarifs (au bénéfice des consommateurs) et les salaires (au bénéfice des salariés), le législateur américain a limité la propriété privée des actionnaires. Ces derniers ne disposent plus en effet de la liberté de prendre certaines mesures dans leur intérêt ! Cette limitation s’explique par le souci de protéger les tiers. Le professeur Merrick Dodd établit que dans certains domaines l’intérêt des parties prenantes conduit à limiter le profit des actionnaires. Aussi, les dirigeants prenant en compte d’autres intérêts que ceux des actionnaires ne font que suivre la Loi. Le professeur Merrick Dodd souhaiterait que ce système soit étendu à l’ensemble des sociétés. De plus, pour lui, une telle orientation législative serait positive pour les actionnaires tant les salariés satisfaits seraient plus productifs.

Enfin Le professeur Merrick Dodd plaide pour une évolution de la vision de l’entreprise[7]. Pour lui, celle-ci doit être considérée comme une personne à part entière et non comme un simple agrégat d’actionnaires. Dès lors, en tant que personne, celle-ci se doit d’être bonne citoyenne. Aussi doit-elle prendre en considération l’ensemble des parties prenantes pour adopter un comportement responsable.

Des limites

Néanmoins, le professeur Merrick Dodd lui-même limite la portée de son texte et doute que ses idées soient accueillies à court terme. Il considère que, même si le droit change, les administrateurs pourront toujours chercher à privilégier l’intérêt des actionnaires. Il pense aussi que l’état actuel du droit ne permet pas l’application de ses thèses. De plus, le professeur Merrick Dodd craint que l’entreprise demeure encore longtemps à la merci de la volonté des actionnaires[8].

Un texte toujours porteur

Aujourd’hui encore, certaines entreprises recherchent de manière illimitée et déraisonnée un profit maximum[9], n’hésitant pas à recourir à la fraude[10]. Malgré l’âge de cet article qui explique que des considérations actuelles (environnement, féminisation du conseil d’administration ou rémunération des hauts-dirigeants), l’article conserve encore aujourd’hui une grande pertinence. L’article est le fruit d’un raisonnement sans précèdent qui lui a permis de remporter le débat doctrinal contre son homologue Adolph Berle, lequel a lui-même fini par l’admettre[11]. De plus, la conception de l’entreprise change aujourd’hui. En effet, l’État n’hésite plus à intervenir pour sauver des entreprises en difficulté, non pour secourir les seuls actionnaires, mais pour venir en aide à l’ensemble de parties prenantes et notamment les salariés[12]. Enfin, certaines entreprises continuent de prendre en compte l’intérêt des parties prenantes via des chartes éthiques[13] ou des engagements en terme de responsabilité sociale[14].

Léna-Lydia Djemili

Alexis Langenfeld

Bèlè Rose de Lima Tchamdja

Étudiants du cours de Gouvernance de l’entreprise – DRT-7022

[1] Merrick DODD, Jr., « Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees », Harvard Law Review, 1932, 45, 1145.

[2] Le Code civil du Québec reprend cette thèse : Code civil du Québec, L.Q., 1991, c. 64, art. 321.

[3] Adolph A. Berle, « Corporate Powers as Powers in Trust », Harvard Law Review, 1931, 44, 1049.

[4] Merrick DODD, Jr., « Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees », Harvard Law Review, 1932, 45, 1145, à la p. 1151.

[5] Merrick DODD, Jr., « Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees », Harvard Law Review, 1932, 45, 1145, aux p. 1154 et s.

[6] Merrick DODD, Jr., « Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees », Harvard Law Review, 1932, 45, 1145, à la p. 1150.

[7] Merrick DODD, Jr., « Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees », Harvard Law Review, 1932, 45, 1145, à la p. 1160.

[8] Merrick DODD, Jr., « Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees », Harvard Law Review, 1932, 45, 1145, à la p. 1161.

[9] Frank DOBBIN et Jiwook JUNG, « The Misapplication of Mr. Michael Jensen. How Agency Theory Brought Down the Economy and Why it Might Again », 2010.

[10] Raymonde CRÊTE, « The Volkswagen Scandal from the Viewpoint of Corporate Governance », 2016; Jeanne DESJARDINS, « Erreurs stratégiques: Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, Suzuki », 2016; L’express.fr, actualité économique, « Un rapport accable la Société Générale et ses 2,2 milliards de « cadeau fiscal » », 2016.

[11] Adolph A. BERLE, The 20th Century Capitalist Revolution, Harcourt Brace & Co., 1954, à la p. 169.

[12] Les affaires.com, bourse, nouvelles économies, « Bombardier: une perte de 4,9G$ et une participation de 1G$ de Québec », 2016; Pascal ORDONNEAU, « Société de Prise de Participation de l’Etat (SPPE) », Les Échos.fr, 2016.

[13] AccorHotel, Charte éthique et responsabilité sociétale d’entreprise.

[14] Coca-Cola European Partners, Nos engagements RSE.

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, merci à Leo Strine de rappeler cette évidence : les CA doivent se préoccuper des parties prenantes ! Dans son article « Corporate Power is Corporate Purpose I: Evidence from My Hometown », Leo Strine s’appuie sur une analyse historique ô combien intéressante… À lire de toute urgence

Le message est clair (j’ai extrait deux phrases qui me semblent ne prêter guère le flanc à la critique) :

• This article is the first in a series considering a rather tired argument in corporate governance circles, that corporate laws that give only rights to stockholders somehow implicitly empower directors to regard other constituencies as equal ends in governance.
• DuPont’s board knew that only one corporate constituency — the stockholders — called the shots and that they were expected to make their end investors’ best interests, even if that meant hurting other constituencies. The DuPont saga isn’t a story about bad people, but a reminder to those with genuine concern for non-shareholder constituencies to face the truth and support changes in the power dynamics affecting corporate governance that make due regard for non-shareholder constituencies a required obligation for the conduct of business.

Using recent events in the corporate history of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company—more commonly referred to today as DuPont—as a case study, this article makes the point that the board of directors is elected by only one constituency—stockholders—and that core power structure translates into corporate purpose. DuPont is an American icon, creator of household names like Nylon and Mylar, which prided itself on its core values, which included commitments to the safety and health of the communities in which DuPont operated and to treat its employees with dignity and respect. But when an activist investor came, DuPont reacted by preemptively downsizing—cutting jobs, and spinning off assets. After winning the proxy fight, DuPont failed to meet the aggressive earnings it used in its campaign. More job cuts came, the CEO was replaced with a member of her proxy fight slate, and DuPont soon embraced a merger consistent with the activists’ goals. At the same time, DuPont demanded tax and other incentives from the affected community it had asked to rally around it in the proxy fight. It did all this even though at no time was there a threat of a lawsuit or judicial intervention from unhappy shareholders. The DuPont saga illustrates how power dictates purpose in our corporate governance system. DuPont’s board knew that only one corporate constituency—the stockholders—called the shots and that they were expected to make their end investors’ best interests, even if that meant hurting other constituencies. The DuPont saga isn’t a story about bad people, but a reminder to those with genuine concern for non-shareholder constituencies to face the truth and support changes in the power dynamics affecting corporate governance that make due regard for non-shareholder constituencies a required obligation for the conduct of business.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Intéressant ce que relaie le Time. Il y a un des candidats à l’élection présidentielle américaine a invoqué le devoir fiduciaire pour justifier les politiques d’évitement fiscales qu’il a mises en œuvre pendant de nombreuses années : « Donald Trump’s ‘Fiduciary Duty’ Excuse on Taxes Is Just Plain Wrong ». Qu’en penser ? Pour la journaliste Rana Foroohar, la réponse est claire : « The Donald and his surrogates say he has a legal responsibility to minimize tax payments for his shareholders. It’s not a good excuse ».

It’s hard to know what to say to the New York Times’ revelation that Donald Trump lost so much money running various casino and hotel businesses into the ground in the mid-1990s ($916 million to be exact) that he could have avoided paying taxes for a full 18 years as a result (which may account for why he hasn’t voluntarily released his returns—they would make him look like a failure).

But predictably, Trump did have a response – fiduciary duty made me do it. So, how does the excuse stack up? Does Donald Trump, or any taxpayer, have a “fiduciary duty,” or legal responsibility, to maximize his income or minimize his payments on his personal taxes? In a word, no. “His argument is legal nonsense,” says Cornell University corporate and business law professor Lynn Stout,

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian