Responsabilité sociale des entreprises | Page 2

Billet à découvrir sur le site de Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance pour y lire cet article consacré à la sortie de crise sanitaire et aux apports de la raison d’être et des critères ESG : « ESG and Corporate Purpose in a Disrupted World » (Kristen Sullivan, Amy Silverstein et Leeann Galezio Arthur, 10 août 2020).

Extrait :

Corporate purpose and ESG as tools to reframe pandemic-related disruption

The links between ESG, company strategy, and risk have never been clearer than during the COVID-19 pandemic, when companies have had to quickly pivot and respond to critical risks that previously were not considered likely to occur. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Survey 2020, published in January 2020, listed “infectious diseases” as number 10 in terms of potential economic impact, and did not make the top 10 list of risks considered to be “likely.” The impact of the pandemic was further magnified by the disruption it created for the operations of companies and their workforces, which were forced to rethink how and where they did business virtually overnight.

The radical recalibration of risk in the context of a global pandemic further highlights the interrelationships between long-term corporate strategy, the environment, and society. The unlikely scenario of a pandemic causing economic disruption of the magnitude seen today has caused many companies—including companies that have performed well in the pandemic—to reevaluate how they can maintain the long-term sustainability of the enterprise. While the nature and outcomes of that reevaluation will differ based on the unique set of circumstances facing each company, this likely means reframing the company’s role in society and the ways in which it addresses ESG-related challenges, including diversity and inclusion, employee safety, health and well-being, the existence of the physical workplace, supply chain disruptions, and more.

ESG factors are becoming a key determinant of financial strength. Recent research shows that the top 20 percent of ESG-ranked stocks outperformed the US market by over 5 percentage points during a recent period of volatility. Twenty-four out of 26 sustainable index funds outperformed comparable conventional index funds in Q1 2020. In addition, the MSCI ACWI ESG Leaders Index returned 5.24 percent, compared to 4.48 percent for the overall market, since it was established in September 2007 through February 2020. Notably, BlackRock, one of the world’s largest asset managers, recently analyzed the performance of 32 sustainable indices and compared that to their non-sustainable benchmarks as far back as 2015. According to BlackRock the findings indicated that “during market downturns in 2015–16 and 2018, sustainable indices tended to outperform their non-sustainable counterparts.” This trend may be further exacerbated by the effects of the pandemic and the social justice movement.

Financial resilience is certainly not the only benefit. Opportunities for brand differentiation, attraction and retention of top talent, greater innovation, operational efficiency, and an ability to attract capital and increase market valuation are abundant. Companies that have already built ESG strategies, measurements, and high-quality disclosures into their business models are likely to be well-positioned to capitalize on those opportunities and drive long-term value postcrisis.

As businesses begin to reopen and attempt to get back to some sense of normalcy, companies will need to rely on their employees, vendors, and customers to go beyond the respond phase and begin to recover and thrive. In a postpandemic world, this means seeking input from and continuing to build and retain the confidence and trust of those stakeholder groups. Business leaders are recognizing that ESG initiatives, particularly those that prioritize the health and safety of people, will be paramount to recovery.

What are investors and other stakeholders saying?

While current events have forced and will likely continue to force companies to make difficult decisions that may, in the short term, appear to be in conflict with corporate purpose, evidence suggests that as companies emerge from the crisis, they will refresh and recommit to corporate purpose, using it as a compass to focus ESG performance. Specific to the pandemic, the public may expect that companies will continue to play a greater role in helping not only employees, but the nation in general, through such activities as manufacturing personal protective equipment (PPE), equipment needed to treat COVID-19 patients, and retooling factories to produce ventilators, hand sanitizer, masks, and other items needed to address the pandemic. In some cases, decisions may be based upon or consistent with ESG priorities, such as decisions regarding employee health and well-being. From firms extending paid sick leave to all employees, including temporary workers, vendors, and contract workers, to reorienting relief funds to assist vulnerable populations, examples abound of companies demonstrating commitments to people and communities. As companies emerge from crisis mode, many are signaling that they will continue to keep these principles top of mind. This greater role is arguably becoming part of the “corporate social contract” that legitimizes and supports the existence and prosperity of corporations.

In the United States, much of the current focus on corporate purpose and ESG is likely to continue to be driven by investors rather than regulators or legislators in the near term. Thus, it’s important to consider investors’ views, which are still developing in the wake of COVID-19 and other developments.

Investors have indicated that they will assess a company’s response to the pandemic as a measure of stability, resilience ,and adaptability. Many have stated that employee health, well-being, and proactive human capital management are central to business continuity. Investor expectations remain high for companies to lead with purpose, particularly during times of severe economic disruption, and to continue to demonstrate progress against ESG goals.

State Street Global Advisors president and CEO Cyrus Taraporevala, in a March 2020 letter to board members, emphasized that companies should not sacrifice the long-term health and sustainability of the company when responding to the pandemic. According to Taraporevala, State Street continues “to believe that material ESG issues must be part of the bigger picture and clearly articulated as part of your company’s overall business strategy.” According to a recent BlackRock report, “companies with strong profiles on material sustainability issues have potential to outperform those with poor profiles. We believe companies managed with a focus on sustainability may be better positioned versus their less sustainable peers to weather adverse conditions while still benefiting from positive market environments.”

In addition to COVID-19, the recent social justice movement compels companies to think holistically about their purpose and role in society. Recent widespread protests of systemic, societal inequality leading to civil unrest and instability elevate the conversation on the “S” and “G” in ESG. Commitments to the health and well-being of employees, customers, communities, and other stakeholder groups will also require corporate leaders to address how the company articulates its purpose and ESG objectives through actions that proactively address racism and discrimination in the workplace and the communities where they operate. Companies are responding with, among other things, statements of support for diversity and inclusion efforts, reflective conversations with employees and customers, and monetary donations for diversity-focused initiatives. However, investors and others who are pledging to use their influence to hold companies accountable for meaningful progress on systemic inequality will likely look for data on hiring practices, pay equity, and diversity in executive management and on the board as metrics for further engagement on this issue.

What can boards do?

Deloitte US executive chair of the board, Janet Foutty, recently described the board as “the vehicle to hold an organization to its societal purpose.” Directors play a pivotal role in guiding

companies to balance short-term decisions with long-term strategy and thus must weigh the needs of all stakeholders while remaining cognizant of the risks associated with each decision. COVID-19 has underscored the role of ESG principles as central to business risk and strategy, as well as building credibility and trust with investors and the public at large. Boards can advise management on making clear, stakeholder-informed decisions that position the organization to emerge faster and stronger from a crisis.

It has been said before that those companies that do not control their own ESG strategies and narratives risk someone else controlling their ESG story. This is particularly true with regards to how an organization articulates its purpose and stays grounded in that purpose and ESG principles during a crisis. Transparent, high-quality ESG disclosure can be a tool to provide investors with information to efficiently allocate capital for long-term return. Boards have a role in the oversight of both the articulation of the company’s purpose and how those principles are integrated with strategy and risk.

As ESG moves to the top of the board agenda, it is important for boards to have the conversation on how they define the governance structure they will put in place to oversee ESG. Based on a recent review, completed by Deloitte’s Center for Board Effectiveness, of 310 company proxies in the S&P 500, filed from September 1, 2019, through May 6, 2020, 57 percent of the 310 companies noted that the nominating or governance committee has primary oversight responsibility, and only 9 percent noted the full board, with the remaining 34 percent spread across other committees. Regardless of the primary owner, the audit committee should be engaged with regard to any ESG disclosures, as well as prepared to oversee assurance associated with ESG metrics.

Conclusion

The board’s role necessitates oversight of corporate purpose and how corporate purpose is executed through ESG. Although companies will face tough decisions, proactive oversight of and transparency around ESG can help companies emerge from recent events with greater resilience and increased credibility. Those that have already embarked on this journey and stay the course will likely be those well-positioned to thrive in the future.

Questions for the board to consider asking:

How are the company’s corporate purpose and ESG objectives integrated with strategy and risk?

1. Has management provided key information and assumptions about how ESG is addressed during the strategic planning process?
2. How is the company communicating its purpose and ESG objectives to its stakeholders?
3. What data does the company collect to assess the impact of ESG performance on economic performance, how does this data inform internal management decision- making, and how is the board made aware of and involved from a governance perspective?
4. Does the company’s governance structure facilitate effective oversight of the company’s ESG matters?
5. How is the company remaining true to its purpose and ESG, especially now given COVID-19 pandemic and social justice issues?
6. What is the board’s diversity profile? Does the board incorporate diversity when searching for new candidates?
7. Have the board and management discussed executive management succession and how the company can build a diverse pipeline of candidates?
8. How will the company continue to refresh and recommit to its corporate purpose and ESG objectives as it emerges from the pandemic response and recovery and commit to accelerating diversity and inclusion efforts?
9. How does the company align its performance incentives for executive leadership with attaining critical ESG goals and outcomes?

À la prochaine…

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…

Dans ReadClear Markets, Bernard Sharfman critique la dernière position prise par BlackRock : « Does BlackRock’s Shareholder Activism Breach Its Fiduciary Duties? ».

Extrait :

In Larry Fink’s (CEO of BlackRock) most recent letter to CEOs, A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance, Fink lays out a strategy for how BlackRock will use its considerable amount of delegated shareholder voting power to dictate its own vision of what a public company’s (a company traded on a U.S. stock exchange or over-the-counter) stakeholder relationships should be. These relationships represent the management of an enormous number of entities and individuals, entailing much complexity. That is why their management is placed in the hands of those who have the knowledge and expertise to manage them: the company’s management team. In this writing, I argue that BlackRock’s implementation of a strategy of interfering with a public company’s stakeholder relationships (“strategy”) is a form of shareholder activism that may breach the fiduciary duties owed to its investors.

As a means to implement its strategy, a strategy that allegedly is meant “to promote long-term value” for its investors, BlackRock will be requiring each public company that it invests in—virtually all public companies—to disclose data on “how each company serves its full set of stakeholders.” Moreover, noncompliance will not be tolerated. According to Fink, “we will be increasingly disposed to vote againstmanagement and board directors when companies are not making sufficient progress on sustainability-related disclosures and the business practices and plans underlying them.” Based on first-quarter 2020 data, this threat appears to be playing out in reality.

(…)

But what if BlackRock’s strategy is not really motivated by a desire to enhance shareholder value but to attract the investment funds held by millennials and, at least while they are young, their perceived preference for less financial returns and more social activism? Millennials will increasingly be the ones holding most of the wealth in the U.S., making it essential for advisers like BlackRock to start catering to their needs and developing their loyalty now, not later. This is an argument recently made by corporate governance scholarsMichal Barzuza, Quinn Curtis, and David Webber.

Or what if BlackRock’s strategy is used to appease shareholder activists who attack BlackRock’s management? For example, in November 2019, Boston Trust Walden and Mercy Investment Services submitted a shareholder proposal to BlackRock demanding that it provide a review explaining why its climate-change rhetoric does not correspond with how it actually votes at shareholder meetings. The proposal was reportedly withdrawn after BlackRock agreed to give increased consideration to shareholder proposals on climate change and join Climate Action 100, an investor group that targets its shareholder activism at fossil fuel producers and greenhouse gas emitters.

So while BlackRock’s shareholder activism may be a good marketing strategy, helping it to differentiate itself from its competitors, as well as a means to stave off the disruptive effects of shareholder activism at its own annual meetings, it seriously puts into doubt BlackRock’s sincerity and ability to look out only for its beneficial investors and therefore may violate the duty of loyalty that it owes to its current, and still very much alive, baby-boomer and Gen-X investors.

À la prochaine…

Belle opinion dans The Globe and Mail (8 avril 2020) de Kevin Thomas : « Rethinking executive compensation in times of crisis ».

Extrait :

First, the meetings will largely be held online to avoid spreading the virus, a new experience for most of us.

Second, the oversized pay packages for executives and directors that shareholders often accept will be more clearly out of place, when the rest of the community is facing layoffs, cutbacks and serious financial uncertainty.

Some corporate leaders have been reducing pay, foregoing bonuses or donating pay to COVID-19 relief, which is commendable. Many executives will also take a hit, at least temporarily, on the current value of any stock-based compensation. Many stock options granted years ago and vesting now will not be “in the money” at current share prices and executives may have to wait to exercise them.

But with so many boards basing executive performance targets on their company’s relative shareholder returns, rather than absolute ones, some executives will continue to be eligible for high awards, as we have seen at recent annual meetings of large Canadian banks. The value of any share-based compensation may be low at present, but those grants may set up executives for a much, much happier recovery than the rest of us – something we saw in spades after the 2008-09 financial crisis.

Perhaps this is the right time to rethink our whole approach.

Shareholders have long taken aim at the, “Heads I win, tails you lose,” approach to executive compensation at some companies. Corporate boards justify massive payouts to executives when times are good on the basis that shareholder returns are also high, yet somehow find other reasons to continue high levels of pay when shareholder returns are low.

Those approaches are easy targets for scorn and clearly justify a shareholder vote against the board’s approach. But that’s not all that’s wrong with the current system of executive pay.

The structure itself, where so much of an executive’s pay package is based on incentive rewards rather than base salaries, inevitably serves up exactly the kind of high pay packages we will see now, even in the midst of this crisis.

We’ve become far too used to the idea that large incentive payouts are necessary to align executive performance with shareholder value. We’ve spawned a whole industry that cooks up ever-more-complex formulas to set executive compensation on the assumption that it incentivizes productive behaviour. It’s not at all clear that it does.

As Tom Powdrill at the U.K. pension consultancy PIRC wrote recently, “Watching medical staff worldwide throw themselves into the battle against COVID-19, without any expectation that they will be paid a single penny extra as a ‘bonus’ for their efforts, but with the expectation that some of them will die, requires us to rethink things fundamentally.”

So, what if we take this chance to do things differently?

In the immediate term, we’ll be looking for leadership from more boards and executives, especially when decisions are being made about layoffs, salary cuts, dividend cuts and reduced expenditures that hurt external suppliers. Cancelling discretionary executive pay and taking a pass on director compensation is the least they can do.

That goes double for any firm receiving government assistance. “We’re all in this together” has to mean something.

À la prochaine…

Le professeur Pierre-Yves Gomez apporte une belle réflexion sur le rôle des actionnaires de demain ! Dans « Coronavirus : qu’attendre des actionnaires ? », il livre une belle critique des investisseurs et souhaite un retour de l’actionnaire partie prenante responsable.

Extrait :

Le pouvoir des actionnaires peut être légitime dans la mesure où ils conservent leurs titres sans limite de temps a priori. Ils accompagnent ainsi le projet d’une entreprise, quitte à prendre le risque de ne pas être rémunérés en période de difficultés. Or les marchés ne sont pas composés d’actionnaires mais d’investisseurs.

La différence est décisive : un investisseur a pour mission de valoriser l’épargne qui lui est confiée. La manière la plus profitable de le faire est de parier sur des titres en fonction des paris des autres investisseurs. Il projette donc a priori de se défaire à meilleur prix et parfois très rapidement, des parts de capital achetées ; telle est la différence radicale avec la fonction d’actionnaire telle qu’elle s’exerce dans des entreprises au capital patient, qu’il soit familial, public ou salarié.

La déconnexion entre l’aventure entrepreneuriale et son financement a produit une sphère qui obéit à sa propre logique de valorisation des actifs. Ainsi quand, en février 2020, les cas de Covid-19 se multipliaient dans le monde, les Bourses nageaient dans l’optimisme et se félicitaient de records dépassant ceux de 2007. Puis, en mars, dégringolade : elles perdaient 40 % de leur valeur. Depuis, elles spéculent sur les effets macroéconomiques des politiques publiques…

Manifestement, l’absence de responsabilité de chaque investisseur quant à la vie réelle des entreprises débouche sur une irresponsabilité systémique. L’économie n’est pas régulée au mieux par une mythique « main invisible » financière d’autant que si elle est capricieuse, cette main n’est pas innocente. Selon le mot de Joan Robinson, elle fait « toujours son œuvre, mais agit par strangulation » : dans les entreprises, on pâtit depuis des années des exigences absurdes de profit et de leur pression sur le travail et les investissements.

Pour reprendre souffle, les entreprises mettent en avant leurs missions mais surtout leurs responsabilités en tant que communautés de parties prenantes inscrites dans un écosystème social et naturel.Or, la raréfaction des ressources due à la crise va créer un appel d’air. Dans une société fragilisée, les entreprises réputées performantes montreront que leur responsabilité est de créer de la valeur pour toutes les parties prenantes y compris pour la société. La démarche s’imposera aussi aux acteurs de la finance : quelle est leur mission et comment la remplissent-ils au service de tous ?

C’est pourquoi le gel des dividendes pourrait paradoxalement marquer un changement d’époque, en signalant, non pas le sacrifice de l’actionnariat sur l’autel de l’opinion, mais son retour en tant que partie prenante responsable.

À la prochaine…