Gouvernance | Page 11

Le nouveau Code de gouvernance allemand vient d’être rendu officiel par sa publication dans la Gazette du 20 mars 2019 (ici).

Résumé

The Deutscher Corporate Governance Kodex, the German corporate governance code (the Code), consists of three elements. At first it describes legal regulations for management and supervision of German listed companies (corporate governance), which are mainly referring to the Aktiengesetz (German Stock Corporation Act). Further elements are international and national acknowledged standards for good and responsible corporate governance, in the form of recommendations and suggestions. Recommendations are marked in the text by use of the word “shall” and suggestions of the word “should”. 

Through the declaration of conformity pursuant to § 161 Aktiengesetz (Stock Corporation Act), the code has a legal basis. Accordingly, the recommendations and suggestions are not mandatory. However, deviations from the recommendations – not the suggestions – have to be explained and disclosed with the annual declaration of conformity (Comply or Explain). The recommendations and suggestions of the code become valid with the publication in the official section of the Federal Gazette.

Besides giving recommendations and suggestions that reflect the best practice of corporate governance, the Code aims at enhancing the German corporate governance system’s transparency and comprehensibility, in order to strengthen the confidence of international and national investors, clients, employees and the general public in the management and supervision of German listed companies. 

The Commission reviews the Code on an annual basis in order to find out if it still describes the best practice of good corporate governance and adapts it when indicated.

Pour accéder à ce code (en version anglaise) : ici.

À la prochaine…

Vraiment intéressant cet article de Le Monde : « Après BlackRock, Vanguard convoite les retraites européennes » (10 mars 2020). À l’instar de l’Amérique du nord, de gros joueurs veulent faire leur apparition sur le marché et vont devoir placer leurs fonds dans des entreprises. Le capitalisme à double étage comme l’appelait Philippe Bissara a un bel avenir devant lui !

Résumé

En décembre 2019, le grand public français a soudain découvert BlackRock. L’énorme société de gestion américaine, la plus importante au monde, qui gère 7 500 milliards de dollars (6 500 milliards d’euros) d’encours, s’est retrouvée accusée d’agir en sous-main pour influencer la réforme des retraites. Jean-Luc Mélenchon fustige désormais les « blackrockistes » : « C’est BlackRock qui se trouve là, derrière tous ces articles [de loi] », dénonçait le leader de La France insoumise, le 9 février, devant une commission de l’Assemblée nationale.

Et voilà que Vanguard, autre énorme société de gestion américaine, avec 5 600 milliards de dollars d’encours, se lance dans le débat. Mardi 10 mars, elle publiait un « manifeste » incitant les Européens à épargner davantage. « Les habitants de l’Union européenne n’épargnent pas correctement pour leur retraite et, chez Vanguard, nous pensons qu’il y a certaines choses qui peuvent être faites pour les aider », explique au Monde Sean Hagerty, le directeur de Vanguard pour l’Europe.

À la prochaine…

Le 13 mars 2020, le professeur Claude Francoeur a publié une intéressante tribune dans le quotidien La presse + intitulé : « Place aux femmes et aux jeunes en gouvernance ! ». Malgré l’actualité de ce thème, le statut quo domine malheureusement dans les pratiques des entreprises canadiennes.

Résumé :

Les boys clubs – en particulier, ceux qui sont systématiquement entretenus dans les conseils d’administration (C.A.) de nos plus grandes entreprises – ont récemment fait l’objet de vives critiques. On leur demande de briser ces cercles fermés en faisant entre autres davantage place aux femmes. Malgré ces revendications, les C.A. des entreprises canadiennes demeurent très homogènes, la grande majorité des administrateurs étant encore et toujours des hommes !

À la prochaine…

Bel article proposé par la professeure Tsuk Mitchell, Dalia : « From Dodge to eBay: The Elusive Corporate Purpose » (Virginia Law & Business Review, 2019, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 155-211) ! Cet article revient sur la fameuse mission des entreprises en confrontant les visions économiques et socio-politiques qui expliquent une lecture différentes de son contenu.

Résumé :

This article examines the history of the law of corporate purpose. I argue that the seemingly conflicting visions of corporate social responsibility and shareholder wealth maximization, which characterize contemporary debates about the subject, are grounded in two different paradigms for corporate law — a socio-political paradigm and an economic-financial one. Advocates of the socio-political paradigm have historically focused on the power that corporations could exercise in society, while those embracing the economic-financial paradigm expressed concerns about the power that the control group could exercise over the corporation’s shareholders. Over the course of the twentieth century, scholars have debated the merits of each of these paradigms and the concerns associated with them, while judges drew upon the academic and, more importantly, the managerial sentiments and concerns of the era to attach a purpose to corporate law’s doctrine, that is, the ultra vires doctrine in the early twentieth century, the enabling business judgment rule by mid-century, and the laws applicable to evaluating managerial responses to hostile takeovers at the century’s end. Ultimately, the cases seemingly addressing corporate purpose did not endorse wealth maximization or social responsibility as objectives. Rather, they empowered corporate managers to set corporate goals without interference from shareholders or the courts.

À la prochaine…

Les fonds d’investissement apportent-ils réellement leur soutien aux critères lorsqu’ils exercent leur vote ? Voilà une belle à laquelle un auteur apporte malheureusement une réponse négative : Caleb Griffin, Environmental & Social Voting at Index Funds (February 14, 2020), https://ssrn.com/abstract=. On est donc encore loin des voeux affichés par les gros joueurs de l’industrie semble-t-il…

Résumé :

This Article demonstrates that, despite a considerable marketing focus on their E&S efforts, overall support for E&S proposals is low for the Big Three.

In the 2018-2019 proxy season, Vanguard’s largest funds supported 7.5% of unique shareholder E&S proposals, while State Street’s largest funds supported 22.7% of such proposals and BlackRock’s largest funds supported 7.1% of such proposals. Other funds support E&S proposals at far higher rates (e.g., Deutsche Bank at 77.9%) and far lower rates (e.g., Dimensional at 0%). Given that funds have a fiduciary duty to vote in the “best interests” of their investors, which fund got it right? The surprising answer is that no one knows—not even the funds themselves. Only by blind luck could these funds, who seek no input from their investors and make no serious attempts to discern investor preferences, be accurately reflecting investors’ interests with their voting behaviors. What are the odds that all, or even the majority, of Vanguard’s investors would benefit from just 7.5% of shareholder E&S proposals while State Street’s shareholders would benefit from 22.7% and Deutsche’s shareholders would benefit from 77.9%? What is the likelihood that BlackRock’s SRI investors would be satisfied with support for 27.7% of E&S proposals while Vanguard’s SRI investors were satisfied with support for 2.2% of such proposals? Is it probable that Guggenheim’s investors are well-served by 77.9% of SRI activities while Dimensional’s investors were well-served by exactly 0% of them?

Ultimately, this Article concludes that it is a convenient myth that index fund stewardship teams are even marginally constrained by the “best interests” standard when voting on E&S proposals, and likely other proposals as well. The truth is that these index funds, possessing the power to decide the fate of most E&S proposals, can do as they wish with that power. The status quo urgently needs change to ensure that index funds are truly acting in investors’ best interests. This Article proposes that such constraint should come in the form of greater input from index fund investors.

À la prochaine…