parties prenantes | Page 4

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…

En voilà une nouvelle ! La province de Colombie-Britannique vient de faire place à une Benefit Corporation. Certaines modifications apportées à la Business Corporations Act de la Colombie-Britannique (la « BCBCA ») qui vont entrer en vigueur le 30 juin 2020 permettent la création d’un nouveau sous-type de société, la « société d’intérêt social » (la benefit company). La Colombie-Britannique est le premier territoire canadien à adopter ce concept qui n’est pourtant pas nouveau aux États-Unis. Pas sûr que ce choix soit heureux dans la mesure où la 3C existait déjà et qu’elle se révèle sans doute plus porteuse pour la RSE…

Pour en savoir plus : « Une première au Canada : les sociétés d’« intérêt social » arrivent en Colombie-Britannique » (Stikeman Elliott, 5 juin 2020)

Extrait :

The major distinctions between a B.C. benefit company and other B.C. companies are as follows:

• Notice of articles: The benefit company’s notice of articles will contain the following statement (the “benefit statement”):

This company is a benefit company and, as such, is committed to conducting its business in a responsible and sustainable manner and promoting one or more public benefits.

• Articles: The benefit company’s articles must include a provision that specifies the public benefits to be promoted (“benefit provision”). “Public benefit” refers to something that has a positive effect that benefits (i) a class of persons other than shareholders of the company in their capacity as shareholders, or a class of communities or organizations, or (ii) the environment. The positive effect can be:
  • Artistic
  • Charitable
  • Cultural
  • Economic
  • Educational
  • Environmental
  • Literary
  • Medical
  • Religious
  • Scientific
  • Technological

• Alterations: Any decision to adopt or eliminate the benefit statement (i.e. to alter the company’s status as a benefit company) must be approved by a special resolution of the voting shareholders. Both voting and non-voting shareholders of the benefit company are entitled to dissent rights with respect to such a change or to a change in the benefit provision.
• Benefit report: Each year, the benefit company must prepare, provide to its shareholders and post on its website (if it has one) a report (“benefit report”) that assesses the company’s performance in carrying out the commitments set out in the company’s benefit provision compared to a third-party standard. The report needs to include information about the process and rationale for selecting or changing the relevant third-party standard. Regulations may be enacted that provide more details about the third-party standard and the contents of the benefit report.
• Penalties relating to the benefit report: It will be an offence if the directors of the benefit company do not prepare and post the benefit report as required by the BCBCA and the regulations. There is a potential fine of up to $2,000 for individuals or $5,000 for persons other than individuals.
• Augmented fiduciary duty: The directors and officers of a benefit company will be required to act honestly and in good faith with a view to conducting the business in a responsible and sustainable manner and promoting the public benefits that the company has identified in its benefit provision. They must balance that public benefits duty against their duties to the company. (There is currently no guidance with respect to achieving this balance.) However, the amendments state that the public benefits duty does not create a duty on the part of directors or officers to persons who are affected by the company’s conduct or who would be personally benefitted by it.
• Enforcement and remedies where duty breached: Several significant provisions in the amendments relate to enforcement and remedies:
  • Shareholders are the only persons who are able to bring an action against a BCBCA benefit company’s directors and officers over an alleged violation of their duty relating to public benefits;
  • Only shareholders that, in the aggregate, hold at least 2% of the company’s issued shares may bring such an action (in the case of a public company, a $2 million shareholding, in the aggregate, will also suffice); and
  • The court may not order monetary damages in relation to a breach of that duty. Other remedies, such as removal or a direction to comply, would still be available.

À la prochaine…

Les entreprises et les banques canadiennes semblent avoir fait le choix de la RSE et des parties prenantes comme l’illustre cet article : « Canadian companies can care about more than profit, and could pay a price if they don’t «  (Financial Post, 3 juin 2020).

Extrait :

It is not the first time a leader with a fiduciary responsibility waded into the public discourse. In January, Michael McCain, chief executive of Maple Leaf Foods Inc., used Twitter to criticize the White House for creating geopolitical conditions that led to Iran’s military destroying a Ukrainian airliner carrying more than 170 people, including 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents.  

(…) Corporate stances on environmental, social and political issues are becoming more common. And in Canada, a change to corporate law last year freed executives of some companies to expand their mandates beyond simply maximizing shareholder returns without fear of legal reprisal.

(…) “Companies and investors are beginning to recognize that what happens out there in the real world is arguably even more important than what happens on their spreadsheets and terminals,” said Kevin Thomas, chief executive of the Shareholder Association for Research and Education, a not-for-profit group focused on responsible investing. 

The responses by the heads of some of Canada’s biggest companies to the protests in the United States, as well as their various attempts to assist customers during the coronavirus pandemic, come as companies are also embracing more “stakeholder” capitalism, wherein the raison d’être for firms is more than just returning cash to shareholders. 

(…) Stakeholder capitalism was the theme of this year’s World Economic Forum’s gathering in Davos, Switzerland, where one of Masrani’s peers, Royal Bank of Canada chief executive Dave McKay, was in attendance. 

“As trust in governments wanes, and the complexity of society’s problems grows, companies are charting their own course on environment, social and governance issues, to maintain public confidence in business and ensure the prosperity of communities that business serves,” McKay wrote in January. 

On Tuesday, McKay published a post on LinkedIn stating he was “personally outraged at the senseless and tragic deaths in the U.S., which are clearly symptomatic of ongoing racial discrimination and injustice, and I know we are not immune to it in Canada.”

A year ago, Parliament passed legislation that amended the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA), which lays out the legal and regulatory framework for thousands of federally incorporated firms, to spell out in greater detail how directors and company officers could meet their legal responsibility to “act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation.”

The updated law states that directors and officers may consider shareholders, as well as employees, retirees, creditors, consumers and governments when setting corporate strategy. The law also now states that both the environment and “the long-term interests of the corporation” can be taken into consideration.

À la prochaine…

C’est sous ce titre que les professeurs Gatti et Ondersma amène à une réflexion critique sur l’ouverture de l’objectif des entreprises à la théorie des parties prenantes : « Can a Broader Corporate Purpose Redress Inequality? The Stakeholder Approach Chimera » (4 mars 2020).

Extrait (tiré de l’entrevue suivante « Can a Broader Corporate Purpose Redress Inequality? » :

Our paper also rebuts the premise that shareholder primacy is a key contributor to economic stagnation and inequality. To be sure, shareholder primacy may have contributed to concentration and monopsony in labor markets, excessive executive compensation, the decline in workers’ prerogatives, and tax cuts. But so might the stakeholder approach. Note that a stakeholder approach can hardly fix the central drivers of stagnation and inequality. Globalization, technology, and education cannot be addressed by corporate boardrooms alone. Similarly, collective action dynamics suggest that we cannot expect boards to retreat from further concentration. Experiences with constituency statutes and the battles between large corporations and organized labor tell us that boards won’t improve worker protections without regulation. Implementing legislative or regulatory measures would be much more effective in addressing stagnation and inequality than would be a change in corporate purpose.

In fact, stakeholderism is likely counter-productive. It would give corporations both a sword and a shield with which to defend the status quo.

First, managers and directors can play offense by expanding lobbying efforts, purportedly in the interest of all stakeholders, thus risking corporate capture of the reformist agenda. Second, corporations can deploy stakeholderism defensively by arguing that no direct regulation is needed.  Like others, we take a cynical view of the Business Roundtable’s Statement on Corporate Purpose and Martin Lipton’s “New Paradigm,” which includes regulatory preemption as an express purpose. Meanwhile, a switch to a stakeholder approach would require diverting momentum for change into significant political capital in order for it to be adopted – and once adopted, enshrined in against further change.  Thus, the pursuit of a stakeholder approach would deplete time, energy, and resources necessary to pass reforms to reduce inequality, such as tax, antitrust, and labor measures – precisely the changes most likely to meaningfully distribute power and resources to employees and other weaker constituents.

The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbates this concern.  As many businesses cannot survive without government aid, some have accepted conditions for receiving bailout money, primarily with respect to stock buy-backs and dividend payouts. We speculate that, at some point, businesses might find it convenient to simply offer, in exchange for further government relief, a formal adoption of a stakeholder approach in their charter.  This would preempt more onerous restrictions while preserving the status quo.

As disastrous as the current economic situation is, it also offers a rare opportunity to rethink and possibly reset certain policies. There is little choice but to depart from the tradition of tinkering with corporate governance and instead identify more effective tools to address inequality (mainly in labor, antitrust, and tax laws). This will undoubtedly require greater collaboration across fields and disciplines.

À la prochaine…

Le 30 avril 2020, Philip Gavin s’est interrogé sur l’intérêt de l’article 172 du Company Act pour les administrateurs et dirigeants dans le contexte de la COVID-19 : « Directors’ Duty under UK Law to Promote the Success of the Company during the COVID-19 Pandemic » (Oxford Business Law Blog).

Extrait :

A nuance to director’s duties in the United Kingdom is the expansive statutory delineation of s 172, which endows numerous considerations for directors when acting to promote the success of the company for the benefit of members. Given the unique circumstances of the present-day commercial sphere and the more humanitarian demands being put to businesses, having a statutory foundation upon which to base non-traditional business strategies may assist effective decision-making and financial reporting.

The initial three considerations enshrined within s 172 are (a) the likely long term consequences of any decision, (b) the interests of employees and (c) the need to foster business relationships with suppliers, customers and others. These factors are of particular relevance for firms who sought justification for voluntary shutdown of businesses prior to the wider governmental shutdown.

(…)

Where production changes become quasi-humanitarian in tone and companies internalise cost in the interim, directors may seek justification through s 172(1)(d) and (e), these being the impact on the community and the desirability of maintaining high business standards respectively.  Accordingly, directors can seek to frame these quasi-humanitarian efforts in long-term reputational terms, thereby engendering prospective communitarian goodwill.

Furthermore, as political pressure mounts, boards may evaluate reputational factors not simply in terms of market reputation, but also in terms of Governmental co-operation. This is particularly so where companies face increased intervention by public authorities through the Civil Contingencies Act. Comparatively, in a recent memorandum the Trump administration has attempted to exert control over the distribution of ventilators by the multinational conglomerate 3M. Cautious of such intervention occurring within their own enterprises, companies may shift business operations to such an extent to signal their compliance and co-operation with public authorities, thereby disincentivising the wholesale overrule of board discretion. 

Within jurisdictions with vaguer duties to act bona fide in the best interests of the company (Delaware, Australia, Ireland), directors may still engage in such quasi-humanitarian efforts. Nevertheless, utilising s 172 to steer directorial judgment may assist effective decision-making, and furthermore guide financial reporting, which mandates s 172 director’s statements.  Given that the tenor of 2020 reports will be likely dominated by COVID-19, UK directors will benefit from the homogenising structure of s 172 when making such disclosures in the coming months.

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…

Klaus Schwab (fondateur et le président exécutif du Forum économique mondial, dit Forum de Davos) vient de publier une belle tribune dans FigaroVox : « La crise économique liée au Covid-19: une épreuve de vérité pour les principes qui guident les dirigeants des grandes entreprises » (26 mars 2020).

Extrait :

Alors que l’urgence sanitaire mondiale Covid-19 se poursuit, les retombées économiques se multiplient. La croissance économique mondiale s’est inversée, les entreprises ont commencé à annuler les services qu’elles assurent à leurs clients et des millions de personnes sont au chômage technique ou licenciées. On peut se demander ce qu’est devenu le «capitalisme des parties prenantes» [capitalisme inclusif, NDLR], le modèle économique éclairé auquel de nombreuses entreprises ont adhéré il y a quelques mois à peine. Comment peut-on le rapprocher de ce que nous voyons aujourd’hui?

Avant de répondre à cette question, rappelons ce qu’est le «capitalisme des parties prenantes»: il s’agit d’assurer la préservation et la résilience à long terme de l’entreprise, et son ancrage dans la société. De ce point de vue, une crise économique à court terme, comme celle déclenchée par le Covid-19, permet de distinguer les entreprises qui incarnent véritablement le «modèle des parties prenantes» de celles qui ne lui ont accordé qu’un intérêt de pure forme, tout en conservant fondamentalement une orientation de profit à court terme.Une organisation orientée vers les parties prenantes s’efforcerait de maintenir ses compétences de base.

Cela s’applique à toutes les organisations. Le Forum Économique Mondial est lui aussi confronté à la question de savoir quoi faire des équipes qui sont temporairement «en chômage technique» en raison de l’annulation d’événements physiques. Une organisation orientée vers les actionnaires réduirait immédiatement ses effectifs, afin de maintenir la rentabilité à court terme. Mais une organisation orientée vers les parties prenantes s’efforcerait de maintenir ses compétences de base, de conserver ses talents et d’accepter les coûts à court terme pour préserver sa résilience à long terme.

Nous avons la chance de pouvoir choisir cette dernière voie. Pendant de nombreuses années en tant que fondateur et président exécutif du Forum Économique Mondial, ni moi ni les autres membres du conseil d’administration n’avons demandé ou reçu une augmentation de salaire ou une prime à court terme basée sur les performances, malgré une augmentation constante de la taille et des revenus de l’organisation. D’ailleurs, le Forum Économique Mondial a supprimé les bonus il y a deux ans. Les salariés doivent être motivés par l’objectif et non par l’argent.

Cette approche fait que notre organisation n’est pas obligée de recourir à des licenciements immédiats ou de diminuer son offre à ses membres. Au contraire, ces dernières semaines, nous avons mis en place une offre virtuelle, et nous avons réuni nos partenaires mondiaux pour des réunions et des échanges de bonnes pratiques au sujet du Covid-19. Nous avons aussi mis en place un groupe de travail pour soutenir la réponse sanitaire de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé et pour aider à assurer la continuité des activités tout en protégeant les vies et les moyens de subsistance des salariés.

Il en va de même ailleurs. La crise du Covid-19 révèle ceux qui ne pratiquent pas le «capitalisme des parties prenantes» tout en faisant mine de l’approuver. Bien sûr, presque toutes les entreprises mondiales sont profondément secouées par le Covid-19, et beaucoup ont dû recourir à des mesures très douloureuses, sans que ce soit de leur faute. Mais les différences entre les entreprises qui ont réellement orienté leur activité vers le modèle des parties prenantes et celles qui avaient un modèle d’actionnariat à court terme sont parfois frappantes.

Certaines entreprises ont utilisé leurs bénéfices croissants des années précédentes pour mener des programmes de rachat d’actions importants. Cela a stimulé leur rentabilité à court terme et augmenté artificiellement les bonus distribués aux cadres. Mais, confrontées au manque de réserves ou d’investissements stratégiques, nombre de ces entreprises sont aujourd’hui les premières à souffrir, incapables de redresser la situation sans intervention du gouvernement. En revanche, les entreprises qui ont utilisé leurs bénéfices pour investir dans la transformation numérique, le talent et la recherche et développement font souvent preuve d’une capacité de réaction qui fait défaut aux autres.De nombreuses entreprises qui ont adopté le modèle des parties prenantes ont déjà réagi en offrant leur aide pendant cette crise.

Ces dernières semaines, certaines entreprises ont continué à annoncer des bonus record pour leur PDG, calculés sur la rentabilité et le cours des actions de l’année fiscale 2019. Leurs clients et leurs salariés, dont beaucoup souffrent, n’oublieront pas des décisions aussi éloignées de la réalité qu’ils vivent. En revanche, le Directeur général de Marriot, Arne Sorenson, dont l’entreprise et les salariés ont été sévèrement touchés, a annoncé que le président et lui ne toucheraient aucun salaire en 2020 et réduiraient de moitié la rémunération de l’équipe dirigeante. Ainsi a-t-il illustré la capacité de son entreprise à faire corps avec ses salariés et les sociétés où elle opère.

Enfin, de nombreuses entreprises qui ont adopté le modèle des parties prenantes ont déjà réagi en offrant leur aide pendant cette crise. Unilever, qui est un champion du modèle des parties prenantes depuis le mandat de Paul Polman, a annoncé le 23 mars un don immédiat de 50 millions de dollars en savon à la plateforme d’action Covid qui a été mise en place en réponse à l’urgence sanitaire mondiale. Le géant du transport maritime Maersk offre ses navires et son espace de chargement pour acheminer des fournitures d’urgence partout où elles sont nécessaires dans le monde.

Ces entreprises comprennent qu’une urgence sanitaire mondiale comme celle du Covid-19 exige que tous les acteurs de la société se réorientent temporairement vers l’urgence, et elles ont l’agilité et la préparation nécessaires pour le faire. Ce n’est pas une coïncidence. Ce sont les mêmes entreprises qui ont optimisé la prospérité à long terme et cultivé le capitalisme des actionnaires. Pendant cette période, et lorsque tout cela sera terminé, nous devons soutenir ces entreprises. Elles mettent en œuvre le modèle économique qui nous permettra de survivre aujourd’hui et de prospérer à nouveau demain.

À la prochaine…