Le professeur Aglietta offre une belle analyse sur l,avenir du capitalisme et de la financiarisation en temps de pandémie dans cette entrevue.
À la prochaine…
Bonjour à toutes et à tous, voici une intéressante tribune parue dans The Globe and Mail : « Why Canada should adopt pay ratio disclosures » (19 avril 2020).
In particular, securities regulators should make pay ratio disclosures mandatory to improve transparency of executive pay packages at public companies. Pay ratio disclosures reveal the difference in the total remuneration between a company’s top executives and its rank and file workers….
À la prochaine…
Par la voix de Carter Dougherty, l’Americans for Financial Reform a adressé sa réponse à la SEC à propos de la divulgation obligatoire du risque COVID-19 : « SEC Should Mandate Disclosures on COVID-19 Risks and Responses » (1er juillet 2020).
The impact of the losses on shareholders will be significant. Investors, however, are being forced to rely on news reports to try to understand how the crisis is impacting companies in their portfolios and how those companies are responding. The SEC must act to require companies to provide consistent, reliable data to investors about the economic impact of the pandemic on their business, human capital management practices, and supply chain risks. These disclosures should include:
Prior to the onset of COVID-19, it was often argued that human rights, worker protection and supply chain matters were moral issues not relevant to a company’s financial performance. As millions of workers are laid off and supply chains unravel, the pandemic has proven that view wrong. Businesses that protect workers and consumers will be better positioned to continue operations and respond to consumer demand throughout the pandemic. The disclosures outlined above will provide investors with important information to help them understand how COVID-19 is impacting the companies they are invested in. In addition, by requiring these disclosures, the Commission has the opportunity to encourage companies to review their current practices and consider whether updates are necessary in light of recent events. The process of preparing these disclosures may help some public companies to recognize that their current practices are not sufficiently robust to protect their workers, consumers, supply chains and, as a result, their investors’ capital given the impact of the pandemic.
À la prochaine…
Le 28 avril 2020, l’Autorité des marchés financiers a proposé des mesures ciblées pour améliorer la transparence vis-à-vis du marché et le dialogue entre les émetteurs et les actionnaires.
Pour en savoir plus : ici.
L’engagement actif des actionnaires dans la vie des sociétés cotées est une condition de leur bon fonctionnement et d’une saine gouvernance. A cet égard, l’AMF considère qu’il doit être encouragé. Pour le régulateur, la problématique n’est donc pas d’empêcher l’activisme mais d’en fixer les limites et de se donner la capacité à en maîtriser les excès.
En l’état de la réglementation, l’AMF considère qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de faire évoluer de manière importante le cadre juridique applicable.
Les propositions de l’AMF visent à :
À la prochaine…
Intéressant billet sur le Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance mettant en avant l’importance prise par le « S » des critères ESG : « Time to Rethink the S in ESG » (Jonathan Neilan, Peter Reilly, et Glenn Fitzpatrick, 28 juin 2020).
In advising companies on protecting and enhancing corporate reputation—through good and bad times—our guiding principle is to ‘do the right thing’. Simple as it sounds, it is reflected in the adage that ‘good PR starts with good behaviour’. This guiding principle also translates to building your ‘S’ credentials. While the various ESG criteria of the reporting frameworks and ratings agencies are a useful guide, our consistent approach in advising companies is for them to take the steps they believe are genuinely in the best interest of the company and its wider stakeholders. Not every decision will meet the expectations of every stakeholder; but it’s a good place to start.
As the wider sustainability agenda also drives more rapid and fundamental change in global markets and technology innovation, properly considering the pressure from public policy and evolving legal requirements, as well as the needs of key stakeholders, is key to understanding what is (and will be seen as) ‘good behaviour’.
As the focus on the ‘S’ grows, companies will need to shift from a reactive to a proactive position. While governance and environmental data is readily available for most companies, the same is not true of the ‘S’. The leeway companies have been afforded on the ‘S’ in the past is unlikely to continue; and, expectations of (and measurement by) rating agencies and investors will continue to increase.
In light of the economic shocks and social upheaval across the globe, demands from stakeholders—most pressingly investors and Governments—will reach a crescendo over the coming six months. As the sole arbiter of much of the information needed to value the ‘S’ in ESG, companies have an opportunity to demonstrate a willingness to shift levels of transparency before they are forced to do so. Companies understandably tend to highlight the efforts they make, often through their corporate social responsibility or communications departments, rather than the higher-cost, higher-risk analysis of the effectiveness of those efforts. Fundamentally, hastened by the emergence of a global pandemic, the world recognises the significance of the risk that failure to address stakeholder interests and expectations represents to business. That shift can be identified as demand for evidence of positive outcomes as opposed to simply efforts or policies.
As we noted in our 2019 Paper, ESG will never replace financial performance as the primary driver of company valuations. Increasingly, however, it is proving to drive the cost of capital down for companies while playing a hugely important role in companies’ risk management frameworks. Most immediately, companies should get a firm handle on how comprehensive their policies, procedures and data are in the five areas listed through a candid audit, as well as other factors material to their businesses’ long-term success. However, this is just a first step and companies must build a narrative and strategy around disclosure for all future annual reports and, where appropriate, market communications. Investors of all sizes are increasingly driving this factor home to Boards and management. In just one week at the end of April, human capital management proposals from As You Sow, a non-for-profit foundation, received 61% and 79% support at two S&P 500 companies, Fastenal and Genuine Parts, respectively. The two companies must now prepare reports on diversity and inclusion, and describe the company’s policies, performance, and improvement targets related to material human capital risks and opportunities as designed by a small shareholder—as opposed to crafting an approach and associated disclosure themselves.
What has become clear over the past three months is that a host of stakeholders, including many investors, will expect a sea-change in their access to information and company practices. While there is no requirement to be the first mover on this, those that are laggards will face avoidable challenges and a rising threat to their ‘licence to operate’.
À la prochaine…
La mondialisation met la justice devant un dilemme : comment équilibrer les échanges et les civiliser lorsque l’on ne dispose ni d’organe régulateur, ni de gendarme, ni de puissance de surplomb ? Entretien avec Horatia Muir Watt, professeure à Sciences Po.
Plusieurs solutions se mettent difficilement en place comme un droit de coordination entre les puissances étatiques (qui était l’objet du droit international privé classique), un contrôle par le marché et la concurrence généralisée (benchmarking, scoring, rating, « red flags », etc.), une régulation de l’intérieur en embarquant le droit et la régulation dans les objets mêmes qui circulent (normes ISO), une responsabilisation des acteurs eux-mêmes – en l’occurrence des entreprises (compliance, social reporting), ou encore une justiciabilité polycentrique par laquelle des juges corrigent des acteurs qui, parfois, évoluaient en toute impunité. Nous en parlons ce soir, avec Horatia Muir Watt, professeure des Universités en droit international privé et en droit comparé à Sciences-Po et directrice de la Revue critique de droit international privé.
Une belle réflexion qui permet de s’intéresser au droit dans un contexte de mondialisation et de s’ouvrir à de nouvelles questions !
Vous pouvez l’écouter ci-dessous ou sur le site de France culture.
Le 29 avril dernier, le Commissaire européen à la Justice Didier Reynders a annoncé une initiative législative autour du devoir de vigilance lors d’une conférence en ligne (que vous pouvez visionner ci-dessus) organisée par le groupe de travail du Parlement européen sur la responsabilité des entreprises.
Celui-ci est revenu sur une étude importante menée autour du devoir de vigilance dans la chaîne d’approvisionnement et du respect des droits de l’homme. Il souhaite lancer une consultation publique autour du sujet afin de préparer une initiative législative :
The results show that voluntary action to address human rights violations, corporate climate and environmental harm, although incentivised though reporting, has not brought about the necessary behavioural change.The study found that only one in three businesses in the EU are currently undertaking due diligence which takes into account all human rights and environmental impacts. The survey asked stakeholders about their perceptions relating to possible regulatory options. 70% of business survey respondents agreed that EU-level rules on a general due diligence requirement may provide benefits for business. Those supportive of EU rules believe it would create legal certainty and a single harmonized standard in place of different approaches in the Member States. They indicate it would help levelling the playing field and increase leverage on supply chains in third counties. They also saw the benefit of due diligence as a defence, should a dispute arise. Stakeholders favoured a mandatory due diligence as a legal standard of care, and generally preferred a cross-sectoral regulatory measure, as many companies operate in multiple sectors.
The current crisis has reinforced the support for action: even business organisations, which have been split before the current crisis, come forward with statements in favour of EU action. Just last week, a coalition of investors managing 5 trillion US dollars of assets has asked for mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. We have already started consulting on the main lines of the possible initiative. The public consultation on the new sustainable finance strategy contains questions regarding sustainable corporate governance and due diligence. DG JUSTICE will also launch its own public consultation regarding the initiative.
À l’image du reporting extrafinancier, les modifications à venir au devoir de vigilance pourraient déboucher sur de nouveaux mécanismes dont du droit dur, c’est-à-dire des sanctions juridiques propres.
Affaire à suivre donc !