Normes d’encadrement | Page 2

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, Vanessa van Coppenhagen et Shivani Naidoo proposent un bilan du Code de gouvernance sud-africain : « The South African King IV Report on Corporate Governance: themes and variations » (janvier 2017).

Extrait :

Inclusivity

One of King IV’s objectives is to broaden its acceptance by making it accessible and fit for implementation across a variety of sectors and organisational types. King IV contains sector supplements in respect of municipalities, non-profit organisations, retirement funds, small and medium enterprises and state-owned organisations, which provide direction and guidance on how to apply the principles and recommended practices in these sectors and organisational types.

As is the case in King III, King IV adopts a stakeholder-inclusive approach, meaning that the governing body should take into consideration the “legitimate and reasonable needs, interests and expectations of all material stakeholders in the execution of its duties in the best interests of the organisation over time”. Stakeholders include shareholders, employees, consumers, the community and the environment. Under this approach, the interests of shareholders and funders, and the interests of other sources of value creation (including social and relationship capital), should be given equal status and should be balanced over time, responding to current circumstances, but always in the best interests of the company in the longer term.

Integrated thinking

King IV has further developed the principles of integrated thinking and integrated reporting seen in King III. Through integrated thinking, an organisation should “take into account the connectivity and interdependence between a range of factors that affect an organisation’s ability to create value over time”. One of King IV’s objectives is to reinforce corporate governance as a holistic and interrelated set of arrangements to be understood and implemented in an integrated way. Integrated thinking underpins:

• the stakeholder inclusive approach, in that the interests of shareholders and stakeholders are interdependent;
• recognition that the organisation and society are interdependent, in that the organisation is a provider/developer of wealth, goods, services, employment and intellectual capital and society provides an operating environment, consumer base and skills;
• recognition that the organisation is a corporate citizen, having responsibilities to its own workplace, the economy, society and the environment; and
• sustainable development, in that the organisation operates in the context of the economy, society and the natural environment and present needs should not compromise the needs of future generations.

Integrated reporting is an outcome of integrated thinking.

À la prochaine…

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, Curtis Milhaupt et Mariana Pargendler offre un bel article sur SSRN intitulé : « Governance Challenges of Listed State-Owned Enterprises Around the World: National Experiences and a Framework for Reform ».

Pour un résumé, voir ici (Oxford Business Law Blog).

The national experiences we discuss are rich and diverse. The principal takeaway from the effort to discern patterns in SOE governance in the countries we have surveyed is the lack of pattern. Diversity appears to be the hallmark of governance of listed SOEs around the world. This finding is probably not surprising, given that SOEs are products of states and often enjoy privileged access to lawmakers and regulators by virtue of their provenance. As such, it is natural for SOE governance to reflect the characteristics of national governance—that is, the characteristics and quality of a national regulatory regime for SOEs are deeply influenced by the prevailing national philosophy about the proper scope of state ownership of enterprises, separation of powers, the level of corruption in society, and related factors.

Moreover, at least a level of informal observation, the quality of SOE governance appears to be quite closely correlated with the quality of political governance in a given country. But clearly there are examples of sound SOE governance around the world and innovative approaches to the challenge of SOE governance that may offer guidance to policymakers elsewhere. The diversity of approaches to SOE governance revealed by our study—even among countries that have managed the challenges relatively well—may be cause for optimism, by suggesting that effective governance strategies can be forged with the tools at hand in a given institutional environment, when coupled with appropriate doses of imagination and political will.

In contrast to the implicit message of the international best practice guidelines prescribed by the OECD and the World Bank, there is also no set ‘roadmap’ for successful SOE governance. Indeed, ‘success’ in this field may be a contestable term. Based on the foreign experience we have surveyed and our own analysis of the governance challenges of listed SOEs, we suggest that policy makers seeking to improve the existing regime for mixed-ownership enterprises consider a number of areas from ownership structure and board composition to structural incentives and enforcement.

À la prochaine…

Ivan

Publié le 8 décembre 2016, le nouveau Code de gouvernance hollandais propose un nouveau paradigme tourné résolument vers le long-terme. Sur l’Oxford Business Law Blog, vous trouverez un intéressant article de Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz intitulé : « The Dutch Corporate Governance Code and The New Paradigm ».

Both the New Paradigm and the Dutch Code fundamentally envision a company as a long-term alliance between its shareholders and other stakeholders. They are both based on the notions that a company should and will be effectively managed for long-term growth and increased value, pursue thoughtful ESG and CSR policies, be transparent, be appropriately responsive to shareholder interests and engage with shareholders and other stakeholders.

Like The New Paradigm, the Dutch Code is fundamentally designed to promote long-term growth and value creation.  The management board is tasked with achieving this goal and the supervisory board is tasked with monitoring the management board’s efforts to achieve it.

The long-term investment provisions of the Dutch Code are cogent and succinct, and relate so closely to the essence of The New Paradigm that they are worth quoting in full (…)

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, je vous renvoie à cet article intitulé : « Corporate governance: ’employee voice’ and workplace reporting » (17 août 2018). Cet article revient sur les récentes évolutions britanniques touchant le code de gouvernance du FRC et le droit des sociétés en matière de reporting.

Some of the most eye-catching changes apply to listed companies, but there are also new requirements for many unlisted companies.

The changes are introduced through different sources, including the latest UK Corporate Governance Code (‘the Code’) and amended corporate reporting law and regulations. Different elements also apply to different types of company. Action will be required by heads of HR departments, company secretaries, in-house counsel and boards themselves.

The revised rules will apply for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2019, so the first affected reports will be those published in 2020. However, companies should not wait until drafting those reports to engage with the reforms. Instead, they should be implemented early in the first affected financial year, if not before.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, la sénatrice Élisabeth Warren vient d’introduire un projet de loi très ambitieux (!) : le S.3348 – Accountable Capitalism Act.

Plusieurs points saillants ressortent de ce projet :

• La création d’un Office of United States Corporations.
• La possibilité de s’enregistrer auprès de cet organisme fédéral (alors que jusqu’à maintenant, rappelons-le, l’enregistrement se faisait auprès des États et notamment celui du Delaware).
• Les salariés représenteraient 40 % du CA.
• L’entreprise devrait poursuivre une mission sociétale.
• La redéfintion des devoirs des administrateurs et hauts-dirigeants.

Pour en savoir plus, lire cet article ici du The Guardian.

Extrait du projet de loi

SEC. 5. Responsibilities of United States corporations.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) GENERAL PUBLIC BENEFIT.—The term “general public benefit” means a material positive impact on society resulting from the business and operations of a United States corporation, when taken as a whole. (…)

(1) IN GENERAL.—The charter of a large entity that is filed with the Office shall state that the entity is a United States corporation.

(2) CORPORATE PURPOSES.—A United States corporation shall have the purpose of creating a general public benefit, which shall be—

(A) identified in the charter of the United States corporation; and

(B) in addition to the purpose of the United States corporation under the articles of incorporation in the State in which the United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable.

(c) Standard of conduct for directors and officers.—

(c) Standard of conduct for directors and officers.—

(1) CONSIDERATION OF INTERESTS.—In discharging the duties of their respective positions, and in considering the best interests of a United States corporation, the board of directors, committees of the board of directors, and individual directors of a United States corporation—

(A) shall manage or direct the business and affairs of the United States corporation in a manner that—

(i) seeks to create a general public benefit; and

(ii) balances the pecuniary interests of the shareholders of the United States corporation with the best interests of persons that are materially affected by the conduct of the United States corporation; and

(B) in carrying out subparagraph (A)—

(i) shall consider the effects of any action or inaction on—

(I) the shareholders of the United States corporation;

(II) the employees and workforce of—

(aa) the United States corporation;

(bb) the subsidiaries of the United States corporation; and

(cc) the suppliers of the United States corporation;

(III) the interests of customers and subsidiaries of the United States corporation as beneficiaries of the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation;

(IV) community and societal factors, including those of each community in which offices or facilities of the United States corporation, subsidiaries of the United States corporation, or suppliers of the United States corporation are located;

(V) the local and global environment;

(VI) the short-term and long-term interests of the United States corporation, including—

(aa) benefits that may accrue to the United States corporation from the long-term plans of the United States corporation; and

(bb) the possibility that those interests may be best served by the continued independence of the United States corporation; and

(VII) the ability of the United States corporation to accomplish the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation;

(ii) may consider—

(I) other pertinent factors; or

(II) the interests of any other group that are identified in the articles of incorporation in the State in which the United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable; and

(iii) shall not be required to give priority to a particular interest or factor described in clause (i) or (ii) over any other interest or factor.

(2) STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR OFFICERS.—Each officer of a United States corporation shall balance and consider the interests and factors described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) in the manner described in paragraph (1)(B)(iii) if—

(A) the officer has discretion to act with respect to a matter; and

(B) it reasonably appears to the officer that the matter may have a material effect on the creation by the United States corporation of a general public benefit identified in the charter of the United States corporation.

(3) EXONERATION FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY.—Except as provided in the charter of a United States corporation, neither a director nor an officer of a United States corporation may be held personally liable for monetary damages for—

(A) any action or inaction in the course of performing the duties of a director under paragraph (1) or an officer under paragraph (2), as applicable, if the director or officer was not interested with respect to the action or inaction; or

(B) the failure of the United States corporation to pursue or create a general public benefit. (…)

(d) Right of action.—

(1) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY OF CORPORATION.—A United States corporation shall not be liable for monetary damages under this section for any failure of the United States corporation to pursue or create a general public benefit.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

En voilà une nouvelle ! Selon Me Sarah Fitzpatrick de Miller Thomson LLP, la Colombie-Britannique a déposé un projet de loi visant à introduire une Benefit corporation dans la province de la Colombie-Britannique : « B.C. Considers Benefit Corporations » (27 juin 2018).

British Columbia may become the first province in Canada to pass legislation that provides for the creation of « benefit corporations. » Benefit corporations are different from the typical for-profit business corporation in that they must be mandated to conduct business for the purpose of creating a general public benefit. They must also adhere to a certain level of accountability and transparency.  Benefit corporations started as a « B Corp » certification issued by B Lab, a non-profit headquartered in Pennsylvania. B Lab then prepared model legislation for U.S. States to adopt, officially authorizing corporations to conduct business for a public benefit purpose and allowing directors to act in the best interest of the public.  Currently, 33 U.S. States and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that officially authorizes benefit corporations.

Bill M 216 proposes to amend the B.C. Business Corporations Act (the « Act ») to create benefit companies. The bill is a private members’ bill, which passed second reading on May 17, 2018. As it has passed both first and second reading (which is rare), it is expected that Bill M 216 will receive enough support to pass third reading and be enacted into law.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian