Gouvernance | Page 10

La gouvernance des banques est souvent dans l’ombre de la gouvernance des entreprises. Pourtant, en cette période post COVID-19, il sa passe des choses intéressantes comme en témoigne cet article : « Ni dividendes, ni rachats d’actions, préconise la BCE » (Thierry Labro, PaperJam).

Extrait :

La Banque centrale européenne (BCE) a étendu, mardi, sa recommandation aux banques sur les distributions de dividendes et les rachats d’actions jusqu’au 1^er janvier 2021 et demandé aux banques d’être extrêmement modérées en matière de rémunération variable. Dans un communiqué , elle a également précisé que «cela donnerait suffisamment de temps aux banques pour reconstituer leurs coussins de fonds propres et de liquidités afin de ne pas agir de manière procyclique».

Un nouvel examen de la situation sera fait au quatrième trimestre, et, si tout va «bien», les banques dont les fonds propres sont suffisants pourront reprendre le paiement des dividendes, dit-elle.

Elle appelle aussi les dirigeants à revoir la rémunération variable et à préférer les paiements en actions propres, par exemple.

À la prochaine…

Excellente lecture ce matin de ce billet du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance : « Legal Liability for ESG Disclosures » (de Connor Kuratek, Joseph A. Hall et Betty M. Huber, 3 août 2020). Dans cette publication, vous trouverez non seulement une belle synthèse des référentiels actuels, mais aussi une réflexion sur les conséquences attachées à la mauvaise divulgation d »information.

Extrait :

3. Legal Liability Considerations

Notwithstanding the SEC’s position that it will not—at this time—mandate additional climate or ESG disclosure, companies must still be mindful of the potential legal risks and litigation costs that may be associated with making these disclosures voluntarily. Although the federal securities laws generally do not require the disclosure of ESG data except in limited instances, potential liability may arise from making ESG-related disclosures that are materially misleading or false. In addition, the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws apply not only to SEC filings, but also extend to less formal communications such as citizenship reports, press releases and websites. Lastly, in addition to potential liability stemming from federal securities laws, potential liability could arise from other statutes and regulations, such as federal and state consumer protection laws.

A. Federal Securities Laws

When they arise, claims relating to a company’s ESG disclosure are generally brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which covers material misstatements and omissions in securities offering documents, and under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5, the principal anti-fraud provisions. To date, claims brought under these two provisions have been largely unsuccessful. Cases that have survived the motion to dismiss include statements relating to cybersecurity (which many commentators view as falling under the “S” or “G” of ESG), an oil company’s safety measures, mine safety and internal financial integrity controls found in the company’s sustainability report, website, SEC filings and/or investor presentations.

Interestingly, courts have also found in favor of plaintiffs alleging rule 10b-5 violations for statements made in a company’s code of conduct. Complaints, many of which have been brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, have included allegations that a company’s code of conduct falsely represented company standards or that public comments made by the company about the code misleadingly publicized the quality of ethical controls. In some circumstances, courts found that statements about or within such codes were more than merely aspirational and did not constitute inactionable puffery, including when viewed in context rather than in isolation. In late March 2020, for example, a company settled a securities class action for $240 million alleging that statements in its code of conduct and code of ethics were false or misleading. The facts of this case were unusual, but it is likely that securities plaintiffs will seek to leverage rulings from the court in that class action to pursue other cases involving code of conducts or ethics. It remains to be seen whether any of these code of conduct case holdings may in the future be extended to apply to cases alleging 10b-5 violations for statements made in a company’s ESG reports.

B. State Consumer Protection Laws

Claims under U.S. state consumer protection laws have been of limited success. Nevertheless, many cases have been appealed which has resulted in additional litigation costs in circumstances where these costs were already significant even when not appealed. Recent claims that were appealed, even if ultimately failed, and which survived the motion to dismiss stage, include claims brought under California’s consumer protection laws alleging that human right commitments on a company website imposed on such company a duty to disclose on its labels that it or its supply chain could be employing child and/or forced labor. Cases have also been dismissed for lack of causal connection between alleged violation and economic injury including a claim under California, Florida and Texas consumer protection statutes alleging that the operator of several theme parks failed to disclose material facts about its treatment of orcas. The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but was dismissed for failure to show a causal connection between the alleged violation and the plaintiffs’ economic injury.

Overall, successful litigation relating to ESG disclosures is still very much a rare occurrence. However, this does not mean that companies are therefore insulated from litigation risk. Although perhaps not ultimately successful, merely having a claim initiated against a company can have serious reputational damage and may cause a company to incur significant litigation and public relations costs. The next section outlines three key takeaways and related best practices aimed to reduce such risks.

C. Practical Recommendations

Although the above makes clear that ESG litigation to date is often unsuccessful, companies should still be wary of the significant impacts of such litigation. The following outlines some key takeaways and best practices for companies seeking to continue ESG disclosure while simultaneously limiting litigation risk.

Key Takeaway 1: Disclaimers are Critical

As more and more companies publish reports on ESG performance, like disclaimers on forward-looking statements in SEC filings, companies are beginning to include disclaimers in their ESG reports, which disclaimers may or may not provide protection against potential litigation risks. In many cases, the language found in ESG reports will mirror language in SEC filings, though some companies have begun to tailor them specifically to the content of their ESG reports.

From our limited survey of companies across four industries that receive significant pressure to publish such reports—Banking, Chemicals, Oil & Gas and Utilities & Power—the following preliminary conclusions were drawn:

• All companies surveyed across all sectors have some type of “forward-looking statement” disclaimer in their SEC filings; however, these were generic disclaimers that were not tailored to ESG-specific facts and topics or relating to items discussed in their ESG reports.
• Most companies had some sort of disclaimer in their Sustainability Report, although some were lacking one altogether. Very few companies had disclaimers that were tailored to the specific facts and topics discussed in their ESG reports:
  • In the Oil & Gas industry, one company surveyed had a tailored ESG disclaimer in its ESG Report; all others had either the same disclaimer as in SEC filings or a shortened version that was generally very broad.
  • In the Banking industry, two companies lacked disclaimers altogether, but the rest had either their SEC disclaimer or a shortened version.
  • In the Utilities & Power industry, one company had no disclaimer, but the rest had general disclaimers.
  • In the Chemicals industry, three companies had no disclaimer in their reports, but the rest had shortened general disclaimers.
• There seems to be a disconnect between the disclaimers being used in SEC filings and those found in ESG In particular, ESG disclaimers are generally shorter and will often reference more detailed disclaimers found in SEC filings.

Best Practices: When drafting ESG disclaimers, companies should:

• Draft ESG disclaimers carefully. ESG disclaimers should be drafted in a way that explicitly covers ESG data so as to reduce the risk of litigation.
• State that ESG data is non-GAAP. ESG data is usually non-GAAP and non-audited; this should be made clear in any ESG Disclaimer.
• Have consistent disclaimers. Although disclaimers in SEC filings appear to be more detailed, disclaimers across all company documents that reference ESG data should specifically address these issues. As more companies start incorporating ESG into their proxies and other SEC filings, it is important that all language follows through.

Key Takeaway 2: ESG Reporting Can Pose Risks to a Company

This article highlighted the clear risks associated with inattentive ESG disclosure: potential litigation; bad publicity; and significant costs, among other things.

Best Practices: Companies should ensure statements in ESG reports are supported by fact or data and should limit overly aspirational statements. Representations made in ESG Reports may become actionable, so companies should disclose only what is accurate and relevant to the company.

Striking the right balance may be difficult; many companies will under-disclose, while others may over-disclose. Companies should therefore only disclose what is accurate and relevant to the company. The US Chamber of Commerce, in their ESG Reporting Best Practices, suggests things in a similar vein: do not include ESG metrics into SEC filings; only disclose what is useful to the intended audience and ensure that ESG reports are subject to a “rigorous internal review process to ensure accuracy and completeness.”

Key Takeaway 3: ESG Reporting Can Also be Beneficial for Companies

The threat of potential litigation should not dissuade companies from disclosing sustainability frameworks and metrics. Not only are companies facing investor pressure to disclose ESG metrics, but such disclosure may also incentivize companies to improve internal risk management policies, internal and external decisional-making capabilities and may increase legal and protection when there is a duty to disclose. Moreover, as ESG investing becomes increasingly popular, it is important for companies to be aware that robust ESG reporting, which in turn may lead to stronger ESG ratings, can be useful in attracting potential investors.

Best Practices: Companies should try to understand key ESG rating and reporting methodologies and how they match their company profile.

The growing interest in ESG metrics has meant that the number of ESG raters has grown exponentially, making it difficult for many companies to understand how each “rater” calculates a company’s ESG score. Resources such as the Better Alignment Project run by the Corporate Reporting Dialogue, strive to better align corporate reporting requirements and can give companies an idea of how frameworks such as CDP, CDSB, GRI and SASB overlap. By understanding the current ESG market raters and methodologies, companies will be able to better align their ESG disclosures with them. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce report noted above also suggests that companies should “engage with their peers and investors to shape ESG disclosure frameworks and standards that are fit for their purpose.”

À la prochaine…

Dans Les Échos.fr, la journaliste Sophie Rolland fait un suivi intéressant su comportement des entreprises dans le contexte de la COVID-19 : « Coronavirus : les trois quarts des géants du CAC 40 ont annulé ou réduit leurs dividendes » (19 juin 2020).

La puissante Association française des entreprises privées (Afep), qui représente les 113 plus grands groupes français avait demandé à ses membres de se montrer exemplaires s’ils devaient avoir recours au chômage partiel ou aux prêts garantis par l’État. L’effort demandé était à hauteur dune réduction de 20 %.

Appelées à renoncer à leurs dividendes et à modérer les rémunérations en contrepartie du recours aux dispositifs d’aide de l’Etat, les entreprises du CAC 40 ont opté pour des stratégies variables. Les trois quarts ont annulé (35 %) ou diminué (40 %) les dividendes prévus en début d’année et 17 % les ont maintenus. Certaines ont décidé de les réduire alors même qu’elles n’avaient pas besoin du soutien de l’Etat.

Pas un mauvais résultat en termes de RSE !

À la prochain…

Novethic consacre une intéressante étude sur l’engagement actionnarial intitulée « Engagement actionnarial, les investisseurs responsables face aux dilemmes des AG 2020 », véritable cartographie des acteurs en présence et des enjeux de cette pratique.

Extrait :

L’étude détaille les différents rapports de force entre les acteurs en présence. Avec d’un côté, les investisseurs institutionnels, détenteurs de l’épargne ou des fonds de retraite, qui, pour les plus responsables, veulent s’assurer de la pérennité et de la croissance de leurs actifs sur le long terme. De l’autre, les sociétés de gestion, qui travaillent pour plusieurs investisseurs institutionnels et qui, dans leur stratégie d’engagement actionnarial, doivent faire la synthèse des souhaits de chacun de leurs clients. Enfin, se trouvent les entreprises cotées, pas toutes enclines à écouter les alertes et les revendications de leurs actionnaires de long terme. 

Mais l’urgence climatique, de même que les risques grandissants liés aux inégalités sociales, poussent les acteurs financiers à l’action. La crise du Covid-19, avec son rôle d’amplificateur des risques environnementaux, sociaux et de gouvernance (ESG), s’est également invitée au programme des AG. Et malgré le huis clos des assemblées générales imposé par les mesures sanitaires, des victoires ont été remportées.

(…) La France semble avoir pris le virage, cette année, d’un engagement actionnarial plus actif, alors que les relations entre actionnaires et grandes entreprises cotées y étaient jusqu’alors plutôt feutrées. La réglementation pousse notamment les investisseurs institutionnels à plus de transparence sur leur pratique de l’engagement. Le mouvement mérite toutefois de prendre encore de l’ampleur. Selon l’étude de Novethic, près de la moitié des 100 plus grands investisseurs institutionnels français ne remplissent pas encore leur obligation, prévue dans la loi Pacte, de publier leur politique d’engagement actionnarial et un rapport sur son application.

Reste à transformer l’essai. De grandes sociétés de gestion demeurent encore sur la touche, en n’accordant pas toujours leurs votes lors des assemblées générales, à leurs propres déclarations sur le climat. Plusieurs études l’ont montré, comme celle d’InfluenceMap qui montre que des sociétés de gestion comme BlackRock ou Vanguard ne votent en général pas en faveur des résolutions externes sur le climat. De ce côté-là aussi, cela change : en début d’année, BlackRock a annoncé son adhésion à Climate Action 100+ et son intention d’avoir une politique de vote plus active. La saison des AG 2021 devrait donc s’avérer intéressante.

À la prochaine…

Alors que les entreprises se relancent péniblement, un rappel de ces mots du Forum économique mondial d’avril 2020 paraît adéquat (histoire de ne pas oublier et de ne pas faire primer l’économique et le financier sur toute autre considération).

Déclaration « Stakeholder Principles in the COVID Era »

As business leaders, we are experiencing how profoundly the COVID-19 emergency is affecting the world. Our employees face health risks in their daily lives, and challenges in performing their jobs. Our ecosystem of suppliers and customers is under extreme pressure. By doing all we can to coordinate our work, we can ensure that our society and economy get through this crisis and we can mitigate its negative impact on all of our stakeholders.

We accept our responsibility to address these crises. The first priority is to win the war against coronavirus. We need to do that while doing all we can to help our stakeholders now and, at the same time, to avoid a prolonged economic impact in the future. We will continue to embody “stakeholder capitalism” and do all we can to help those who are affected, and help secure our common prosperity.

To this end, we endorse the following Stakeholder Principles in the COVID Era:

− To employees, our principle is to keep you safe: We will continue do everything we can to protect your workplace, and to help you to adapt to the new working conditions

− To our ecosystem of suppliers and customers, our principle is to secure our shared business continuity: We will continue to work to keep supply chains open and integrate you into our business response

− To our end consumers, our principle is to maintain fair prices and commercial terms for essential supplies

− To governments and society, our principle is to offer our full support: We stand ready and will continue to complement public action with our resources, capabilities and know-how

− To our shareholders, our principle remains the long-term viability of the company and its potential to create sustained value

Finally, we also maintain the principle that we must continue our sustainability efforts unabated, to bring our world closer to achieving shared goals, including the Paris climate agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda. We will continue to focus on those long-term goals.

The world has gone through other crises. As a global community, we will prevail this time as well. But, to do so, we must all bond together and coordinate our response. As business leaders, we pledge to stand at society’s service, to help preserve and rebuild a viable society and economy, and to do all we can for our stakeholders.

À la prochaine…

Douglas Chia dans Corporate Board Member offre une belle lecture sur les trois voies autour desquelles le CA pourrait penser la gouvernance d,entreprise de demain : « Three Ways for Boards to Rethink Governance ».

Extrait :

1. The Board’s Role: Rethink what the board is there to do.

Everyone agrees that the role of the board has changed over the past two decades, not from the perspective of a director’s fiduciary duties, but rather through stakeholders with increased expectations for what the board is there to do and lower tolerance for underperformance from their perspectives. For many boards, the ground that represents their role has noticeably shifted under their feet. But, when was the last time the board met in executive session for the express purpose of thinking about how the company’s stakeholders look at the board’s role and what that particular company needs from its board? Most annual board self-evaluations are brief sessions for the independent directors to ask each other “How do we think we’re doing?” without deeper thought about what it is they need to be doing to best serve that company.

Boards should set aside time to rethink their role in the context of the fundamental changes their companies will be facing going forward. A board can do this by taking its self-evaluation to the next level and by revisiting its charter, mission statement or governance principles as an exercise in rethinking its purpose. As companies face a new world order, it is more important than ever for the entire board to be on the same page for what it is there to do.

2. The Board’s Committees: Rethink whether the board’s committee structure is stakeholder-driven.

The tide of companies turning away from shareholder primacy and committing (or recommitting) to the stakeholder model of governance creates the conditions for boards to step back and look at how they allocate their attention to the interests of each of the commonly-thought-of key stakeholders: customers, employees, communities and shareholders. A board typically handles its agenda by covering high-level concerns at the full board level and delegating to its standing committees those subjects of particular importance to the company requiring more specific and deeper dives.

Currently, the committees prescribed by law are audit, compensation and nominating.  These three committees are largely designed look after the direct interests of the shareholders. So, where do the direct interests of the other three stakeholders get covered? If the answer is “at the full board level,” it may be time to rethink whether that still works and if certain interests of stakeholders other than shareholders should receive deeper-dive treatment in committee. The board can do this by mapping each of the items it covers—both at the full board and in committees—to one or more of the four stakeholders.  Upon doing this, it may become apparent that the allocation of the board’s time is out of balance, and the customers, employees, and communities could use more attention at the committee level.

This may mean adjusting or redesigning the structure and scope of the board’s committees. Some boards already have standing committees to cover subjects that relate more directly to its customers (e.g., risk, product safety, innovation) and communities (e.g., public policy).  Recently, there have been calls for boards to “reimagine” the scope of their compensation committees to cover the company’s overall workforce and issues of human capital going far beyond executive compensation and benefits.  It may be time for boards go even further to rethink whether its governance is truly stakeholder-driven and reimagine how to restructure its agenda and committees to understand and balance the interests of the corporation’s four key stakeholders.

3. The Board’s Resources: Rethink whether the board is sufficiently resourced versus sufficiently paid.

Before March 2020, director compensation had been on a steady, upward trend on the notion that directors are being asked to spend more and more time on their board duties and should be paid commensurate with the amount of work. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in addition to cutting the pay of the CEO and other executives, many boards have temporarily reduced director compensation, not so much hold down costs, but to show employees that the people with ultimate accountability are willing to impose real sacrifices on themselves. If the assumption is that director compensation will go back up to its original levels once business goes “back to normal,” boards need to rethink that.

Boards have felt the pile-on effect of stakeholders continually expecting them to oversee additional areas of concern and own them in a bigger way: political spending, climate change, cybersecurity, data privacy, human capital, artificial intelligence and now pandemic preparedness, just to name a few. Like with all individuals, while a director can be compensated for increased amounts of work, his or her capacity to do a good job will eventually reach its limit, regardless of how much you pay them. What they need are additional resources.

À la prochaine…