actualités internationales Divulgation divulgation extra-financière Gouvernance Normes d'encadrement normes de droit normes de marché Responsabilité sociale des entreprises
Approche juridique sur la transparence ESG
Ivan Tchotourian 3 août 2020 Ivan Tchotourian
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…
Divulgation divulgation extra-financière divulgation financière Gouvernance normes de droit parties prenantes Responsabilité sociale des entreprises
SEC : une réponse à sa consultation sur la divulgation en matière de risque COVID-19
Ivan Tchotourian 4 juillet 2020 Ivan Tchotourian
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).
Extrait :
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:
- Workplace COVID-19 Prevention and Control Plan—Companies should disclose a written infectious disease prevention and control plan including information such as the company’s practices regarding hazard identification and assessment, employee training, and provision of personal protective equipment.
- Identification, Contact Tracing, and Isolation—Companies should disclose their policies for identifying employees who are infected or symptomatic, contact tracing and notification for potentially exposed employees and customers, and leave policies for infected employees who are isolating.
- Compliance with Quarantine Orders and phased reopening orders—Companies should disclose how they are complying with federal, state, and local government quarantine orders and public health recommendations to limit operations.
- Financial Implications—Companies should disclose the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their cash flows and balance sheet as well as steps taken to preserve liquidity such as accessing credit facilities, government assistance, or the suspension of dividends and stock buybacks.
- Executive Compensation—Companies should promptly disclose the rationale for any material modifications of senior executive compensation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including changes to performance targets or issuance of new equity compensation awards.
- Employee Leave—Companies should disclose whether or not they provide paid sick leave to encourage sick workers to stay home, paid leave for quarantined workers, paid leave at any temporarily closed facilities, and family leave options to provide for childcare or sick family
- Health Insurance—Companies should disclose the health insurance coverage ratio of their workforce and whether the company has a policy to provide employer-paid health insurance for any employees who are laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Contingent Workers—Companies should disclose if part-time employees, temporary workers, independent contractors, and subcontracted workers receive all the protections and benefits provided to full-time company employees, including those outlined above.
- Supply Chains-Companies should disclose whether they are current on payments to their supply chain vendors. Timely and prompt payments to suppliers will help retain suppliers’ workforces and ensure that a stable supply chain is in place for business operations going forward.
- Workers’ Rights-Companies should disclose their policies for protecting employees who raise concerns about workplace health and safety from retaliation, including whistleblower protections and contractual provisions protecting workers’ rights to raise concerns about workplace conditions.
- Political activity—Companies should disclose all election spending and lobbying activity, especially money spent through third parties like trade associations and social welfare 501(c)4 organizations.
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…
Divulgation divulgation extra-financière Normes d'encadrement normes de droit normes de marché Nouvelles diverses Responsabilité sociale des entreprises
Reporting extra-financier : présentation des référentiels
Ivan Tchotourian 10 avril 2020 Ivan Tchotourian
M. Cornet propose un document très intéressant sur le reporting extra-financier : une synthèse de tous les référentiels avec les grandes caractéristiques de chacun. Un document très utile ! À consulter : « Les principaux référentiels de reporting extrafinancier dans le monde ».
Je copie-colle le billet de blogue…
Extrait :
En pièce jointe, un tableau de synthèse actualisé sur les principaux référentiels de reporting extrafinancier et référentiels intégrant un volet ou des recommandations sur le reporting extrafinancier.
Réalisé pour les étudiants.es de l’Institut Léonard de Vinci MBA Management de la RSE et Performance des Organisations (MARPO), partagé aujourd’hui avec vous.
Outre son exhaustivité, il illustre la grande diversité des approches.
S’il existe sur le sujet des luttes de territoires et une volonté de réglementer, une étude approndie montre que bon nombre de principes sont quasi universels… Contextualisation, Inclusivité, Matérialité, Exhaustivité, Fiabilité, Clarté, etc…
Et que le point central, c’est la matérialité…
À la prochaine…
divulgation extra-financière Normes d'encadrement normes de droit
Changement climatique : le silence de l’IOSCO
Ivan Tchotourian 12 septembre 2018 Ivan Tchotourian
Mme Cuff critique sévèrement la position de l’organisation internationale des commissions en valeurs mobilières pour leur inaction en matière de divulgation sur les données portant sur le changement climatique : « IOSCO under fire for failure to set direction for climate risk disclosure » (BusinessGreen, 23 août 2018).
The organisation responsible for guiding securities regulators around the world has been accused of failing to set a clear benchmark for climate risk disclosure practices, with pressure mounting on the body to formally endorse the guidelines set out by the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFDs).
(…) But IOSCO, the international body which brings together securities regulators, has failed to formally endorse the TCFD recommendations, despite it being the best-placed body to harmonise climate risk reporting, the report argues.
À la prochaine…
Base documentaire divulgation extra-financière loi et réglementation Normes d'encadrement normes de droit normes de marché
Avis 51-354 du personnel des ACVM « Rapport relatif au projet concernant l’information fournie sur le changement climatique »
Ivan Tchotourian 11 septembre 2018 Ivan Tchotourian
Au Canada, les Autorités canadiennes en valeurs mobilières (ci-après « ACVM ») ont lancé un projet d’examen de l’information fournie sur les risques et les répercussions financières associés au changement climatique pour les émetteurs le 21 mars 2017. Ce projet a porté sur les occasions et les risques liés au changement climatique ayant une incidence sur l’émetteur et sur ses activités, et non sur l’effet qu’un émetteur a, ou peut avoir, sur le changement climatique. Les objectifs du projet d’examen étaient les suivants :
- évaluer si la législation en valeurs mobilières au Canada et les indications actuelles sont suffisantes pour permettre aux émetteurs de déterminer l’information à fournir sur le changement climatique.
- mieux comprendre l’information sur le changement climatique dont les investisseurs ont besoin pour prendre des décisions d’investissement et de vote éclairées.
- vérifier si l’information fournie par les émetteurs est appropriée ou non à cet égard.
Or, près d’une année plus tard, les ACVM publient le résultat du projet au travers de l’Avis 51-354 du personnel des ACVM « Rapport relatif au projet concernant l’information fournie sur le changement climatique » (ACVM, Avis 51-354 du personnel – Rapport relatif au projet concernant l’information fournie sur le changement climatique, 5 avril 2018).
L’Avis 51-354 des ACVM reprend les enseignements de 2010 en soulignant que la législation en valeurs mobilières actuelle au Canada oblige les émetteurs déposant des documents en vertu de la réglementation à y fournir certains éléments d’information sur le changement climatique si ceux-ci répondent au critère de l’importance relative[1]. Des obligations d’information relatives aux questions environnementales sont donc prévues par les principaux règlements régissant l’information continue, notamment le Règlement 51-102 sur les obligations d’information continue[2], le Règlement 58-101 sur l’information concernant les pratiques en matière de gouvernance, le Règlement 52-110 sur le comité d’audit et le Règlement 52-109 sur l’attestation de l’information présentée dans les documents annuels et intermédiaires des émetteurs. En outre, l’Instruction générale 58-201 relative à la gouvernance énonce des indications sur les pratiques en matière de gouvernance[3]. Au Canada, « […] securities commissions require publicly traded companies to disclose environmental information as part of their continuous disclosure requirements »[4].
Pour l’essentiel, les obligations d’information des entreprises portent sur les risques en matière de changement climatique et sur la manière dont les entreprises gèrent les risques importants (publication des politiques environnementales essentielles aux activités des entreprises et texte du mandat de son conseil d’administration ou description de la façon dont le conseil définit son rôle et ses responsabilités, description des fonctions et des comités permanents du conseil et du texte des règles du comité d’audit). Afin de soutenir le processus d’examen, d’approbation et d’attestation, l’entreprise doit appliquer des contrôles et procédures adéquats pour présenter l’information importante, y compris celle se rapportant au changement climatique. Pour autant, la réglementation en place (qui relève de la législation en valeurs mobilières) s’avère peu visible, car intégré sous le parapluie de la divulgation environnementale[5]. L’Avis du personnel 51-354 envisage en conséquence la mise en place de nouvelles obligations d’information (en plus de l’élaboration d’indications et de mesures de sensibilisation concernant les risques d’entreprise et les occasions d’affaires ainsi que les répercussions financières possibles du changement climatique) dans les domaines suivants : l’information sur les processus de gouvernance des entreprises en ce qui concerne les risques et occasions importants, notamment la responsabilité du conseil d’administration en matière de surveillance et le rôle de la direction; et l’information sur la façon dont l’émetteur surveille la détermination, l’appréciation et la gestion des risques importants.
À la prochaine…
[1] Shawn H.T. Denstedt and Scott R. Miller, « Due Diligence in Disclosing Environmental Information for Securities Transactions », (1995), 33 Alta. L. Rev. 231 à la p. 240 (« Notwithstanding the lack of specificity in Canada, it is clear, in the authors’ view, that environmental issues fall under those items often referred to in securities legislation as ‘Other Material Facts’ »).
[2] Articles 1.2, 1.4 g), 1.6 de l’Annexe 51-102A1 « Rapport de gestion » et articles 5.1 paragraphe 4, 5.1 paragraphe 1 k), 5.1 paragraphe 4 et 5.2 de l’Annexe 51-102A2 « Notice annuelle ».
[3] Article 3.4 de l’Instruction générale 58-201.
[4] Mohamed Chelli, Sylvain Durocher et Anne Fortin, « Normativity in Environmental Reporting: A comparaison of Three Regimes », Journal of Business Ethics, 2018, Vol. 149, p. 285, à la p 291.
[5] TCFD Recommendations : Country Reviews, Canada, 13 juin 2017, en ligne : https://www.unpri.org/policy-and-regulation/tcfd-recommendations-country-reviews–canada/280.article
