Gouvernance | Page 2

Bel article publié le 1er avril 2020 dans la Harvard Business Review intitulé : « Coronavirus Is Putting Corporate Social Responsibility to the Test ». La RSE passera-t-elle le texte de l’empirique ?

Extrait :

A great many large companies talk about having a social purpose and set of values, or about how much they care for their employees and other stakeholders. Now is the time for them to make good on that commitment. Research suggests that people only truly believe that their company has a purpose and clear values when they see management making a decision that sacrifices short-term profitability for the sake of adhering to those values.

(…) Here are some things that companies can do to help their employees, small suppliers, health care providers, and communities.

Employees. What companies do to help their laid-off employees  — above and beyond what is required or expected — will be remembered and repaid in increased loyalty, higher productivity, and a lasting reputational benefit for many years to come.

Continuing to pay wages, even at less than full pay, is one option. Walmart, Microsoft, Apple, and Lyft have all made commitments to continue payments to hourly workers for at least the first two weeks of lockdown. This is essential not only as a matter of corporate responsibility; it will also substantially reduce the costs of rehiring employees when the economy returns to normal.

Lending money to employees is another option. Left on their own, many employees will turn to the exorbitant charges of credit card debt and payday lenders who will levy a 20%-plus interest rate at a time when corporations can borrow at 2% or 3%. That difference in interest rates can be the difference between bankruptcy and economic survival. Corporations should use their corporate credit and collateral to arrange low- or no-interest loans to their employees. They should calculate employees’ take-home pay after payroll deductions, and ask their banks to make loans available equal to a month of net wages at 3% interest, guaranteed by the corporation. Employees can pay the loans back over the next year out of their salaries when they return to work.

In all likelihood, very few of a company’s employees will actually require medical care, but if they have no insurance, that too can bankrupt them. Companies should offer to cover the medical expenses of all non-insured employees — probably somewhere between 2% and 5% will actually incur significant bills, and companies can negotiate with their insurer an additional premium to cover them. Sadly, employees may also need help to cover funeral costs for the few who succumb.

Small suppliers. Companies should offer advance payments to their small suppliers, giving them cash today for goods that they will need when they return to production. It’s the corporate equivalent of buying gift cards to keep your local store in business.

Health care providers. Some parts of the world face severe shortages in basic medical supplies, but as a global company you have access to resources everywhere. The need for masks in China and South Korea has waned while it is still growing in the United States and Europe. Companies should purchase and ship supplies from where they are available to where they are needed. They should tap their inventory of whatever they have that might help, send it where it will do the most good, and take the loss.

Communities. Major corporations should use their foundations to aid food pantries, free clinics, and other nonprofits in addressing immediate needs of the communities where they have operations.

Pour rappel, j’ai publié récemment un billet de blogue sur Contact partageant mes réflexions sur les liens entre COVID-19, entreprises et RSE : « La RSE à l’heure de la COVID-19 » (26 mars 2020).

À la prochaine…

Telles sont les propositions des professeurs Konstantinos Sergakis et Andreas Kokkinis dans leur article intitulé « Employee Advisory Panels: A New Paradigm for Shareholder-based Governance? » (25 mars 2020). À découvrir…

Extrait :

Employee participation in corporate governance refers to a range of institutions, voluntary or legally mandated, that engage employees in corporate decision-making, such as works councils with co-decision powers on labour matters, advisory panels, information and consultation committees, employee share ownership schemes and board representation. Corporate contractarian literature dismisses employee participation as inefficient on the grounds that, if it were efficient, it would be voluntarily adopted widely. In our paper, we argue that the scarcity of employee participation in the UK can be attributed to shareholder short-termism and behavioural biases and, therefore, that the question of its efficiency remains open for companies that want to explore this possibility. We thus propose a flexible approach that companies can follow to implement employee participation. Our approach takes into account the broader UK institutional framework by creating adaptable and long-term solutions for both listed and large private companies. Nevertheless, it can be adopted in any other national context where employee board representation has not been mandated by company law provisions.

We argue that the most pragmatic way to encourage efficient employee participation is through the introduction of formal and permanent employee advisory panels and, in the longer term, the proliferation of employee share ownership schemes coupled with special rights to appoint a number of directors in tandem with the size of employee share ownership. Our approach relies on an incremental participation model, whereby employees should first be given a dialogue channel through advisory panels to gain adequate experience before appointing board members. 

À la prochaine…

Drôle de question qui vient d’un article publié sur : « How To Be A Stakeholder-Driven Company During the Coronavirus Pandemic » (Just Capital, Alison Omens, 11 mars 2020). La question est pertinente et une vraie RSE est à ce prix : prendre en compte les salariés !

Extrait :

What should companies be doing?

First, paid sick leave. Every worker, regardless of classification, needs access to paid sick leave. And with too few tests available and concerns about hospital overuse, it can’t only be available when a worker has a proven case of COVID-19. We’re seeing announcements from companies like Walmart and Darden Restaurants on new sick leave policies. Fundamentally in this environment, workers need 14 days of leave. Companies should also press Congress to implement sick leave universally. This will level the playing field for those companies that are committed to doing the right thing for their workers and communities.

Second, we’re seeing many tech and white collar companies encourage or require employees to work from home. Those companies must also be thinking about their contractors, vendors, and suppliers. We’ve seen companies like Microsoft and Alphabet pledge to cover lost wages of hourly workers at their headquarters. Every company should include this as part of their calculation over the coming days and weeks. Stakeholder-run companies connect the interests of their workers to their suppliers and communities, and this is a critical example of that. 

And third: Companies need to know the financial security of their workforce and ask if their workers are making ends meet each month. JUST Capital can help with conducting a financial stress test. This is the moment where recommendations like storing up a month’s worth of food is simply not possible for workers in financial distress. We know that 40% of Americans can’t afford a $400 emergency and according to our initial estimates, 10.4 million people (of the 20 million overall) who work at Russell 1000 companies do not make enough to support a family of three, even with a spouse working part time. It goes without saying that a pandemic is one of those emergencies – necessitating that people obtain additional medication, food, and healthcare. 

À la prochaine…

Passionnant article de Justin Fox sur la participation des salariés au CA des entreprises américaines. Dans son article « Why U.S. Corporate Boards Don’t Include Workers » (21 août 2018), Justin Fox met en avant deux facteurs (le juridique et le politique) pour expliquer cette non présence des salariés dans la culture américaine.

Extrait :

The U.S., it turns out, also used to have entities much like works councils, which went under names like “employee representation plans,” “company unions” and just plain “industrial democracy.” They came into vogue later than in Germany, but constituted a major movement from about 1915 through 1935, when Congress put a stop to them (which doesn’t sound like what Jensen and Meckling would call a “voluntary arrangement”). I cannot claim to be an expert on this history, but I do know a lot more about it than I did a few days ago, so here goes. (…)

This would seem to have gotten us pretty far from the question of why American corporate boards generally don’t include worker representatives. But I think there is a connection. Union officials have occasionally gotten seats on corporate boards in the U.S.: United Automobile Workers presidents Douglas Fraser and then Owen Bieber served on Chrysler’s board from 1980 to 1991 after Fraser’s lobbying helped Chrysler secure a government bailout in 1979-1980, and after the bailout of 2008-2009 the Chrysler and General Motors boards each included a representative of the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, which happened to have become the companies’ biggest shareholder. 5 Union and government-employee pension funds have also occasionally used their clout as shareholders to pressure managements that they see as anti-worker. And employee stock ownership plans and worker cooperatives (which got a boost from new legislation enacted this month) both give workers a say as owners.

But all of these seem quite different from the German setup, where rank-and-file workers are expected to be involved in company governance from the shop floor (or bank branch or research and development center) to the boardroom. What Warren has now proposed can be seen as a sort of very high level employee involvement program. Even if it doesn’t go anywhere (and I’m guessing it won’t, at least not any time soon), perhaps it can restart the discussion over whether we shouldn’t be encouraging other kinds of employee input too.

À la prochaine…

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, Novethic propose un billet bien intéressant sur la place des salariés dans la gouvernance d’entreprise : « Donner plus de pouvoirs aux salariés pour prévenir les crises industrielles ».

Libérer la parole des salariés dans l’entreprise permettrait de mieux prévenir les crises environnementales et sanitaires qui mettent en danger les consommateurs, la planète et la réputation des entreprises. C’est l’avis de Philippe Martinez, numéro 1 de la CGT, qui s’exprimait le 15 janvier au micro de France Inter, à l’occasion de l’affaire Lactalis.

Donner plus de parole et de pouvoirs aux salariés au sein de l’entreprise est l’un des points abordés dans la grande réflexion en cours sur la réforme de l’entreprise dans le cadre du projet de loi Pacte . C’est ce qu’on appelle la codétermination, soit le renforcement de la présence des salariés aux conseils d’administration et de surveillance des entreprises.

De nombreux syndicats, chefs d’entreprise, universitaires et politiques se font les chantres d’une codétermination à la française, qui concernerait non plus seulement les très grandes entreprises mais aussi des grandes PME et les entreprises cotées.

Rappelons que la loi PACTE visant à réformer le modèle des entreprises prévoit de mieux associer les salariés aux fruits de la croissance en développant notamment des dispositifs d’épargne salariale, d’intéressement et de participation des salariés notamment dans les PME. Les salariés seront également mis en avant dans les CA. Jusque-là, dans la loi, les entreprises disposant d’un conseil d’administration, devaient nommer au moins un administrateur salarié. La loi leur en imposera désormais 2 à partir de 8 administrateurs. C’est moins ce que préconisait le rapport Notat/Senard rendu à l’hiver 2018.

À la prochaine…

Les professeurs Alain Couret et Bruno Dondero offrent une belle tribune sur le projet de loi PACTE et ses conséquences sur le droit des sociétés : « Projet de loi PACTE : dispositions de droit des sociétés » (CMS Francis Lefebvre, juin 2018).

Mesure-phare : intérêt social élargi et raison d’être (article 61)

L’idée, dont on a beaucoup parlé, est de faire entrer dans le Code civil une référence aux intérêts sociaux et environnementaux (rapport Notat-Senard).

Figurera à l’article 1833 du Code civil un alinéa supplémentaire selon lequel « La société est gérée dans son intérêt social et en prenant en considération les enjeux sociaux et environnementaux de son activité ». Une référence sera aussi ajoutée aux articles L.225-35 et L.225-64 du Code de commerce, textes relatifs à la société anonyme.

Une question est celle des sanctions qui pourraient frapper une société qui ne respecterait pas cette règle. Ce ne sera pas la nullité de la société (une modification de l’article 1844-10 du Code civil est envisagée), mais ce pourrait être la nullité des actes pris par les organes sociaux dès lors que le nouvel alinéa de l’article 1833 du Code civil est une « disposition impérative ».

Il sera par ailleurs indiqué à l’article 1835 du Code civil que les statuts d’une société « peuvent préciser la raison d’être dont la société entend se doter dans la réalisation de son activité ». Cette raison d’être devra, le cas échéant, être prise en considération par le conseil d’administration ou le directoire, selon des modifications qui seront apportées au Code de commerce, là encore pour les seules sociétés anonymes. Une question qui se posera sera celle de la sanction de « l’oubli » par une société de sa raison d’être, question voisine de celle de la sanction du non-respect par une société de ses normes propres : code de bonne conduite, etc.

Retouche au régime des administrateurs représentant les salariés (article 62)

Aujourd’hui, le nombre de ces administrateurs représentant les salariés, dont la désignation est imposée aux sociétés employant plus de 1.000 salariés (en France, filiales comprises) ou plus de 5.000 salariés (en France et à l’étranger, filiales comprises) est de deux pour les conseils d’administration de plus de douze membres, et d’un administrateur représentant les salariés, lorsque le conseil comporte douze administrateurs ou moins.

Le projet de loi PACTE envisage d’imposer la désignation de deux administrateurs représentant les salariés dès lors que le conseil dépassera le seuil de huit administrateurs.

Mesures visant à favoriser le développement de l’actionnariat salarié (articles 59 et 60)

Dans les SAS, les offres d’actions adressées aux dirigeants, salariés et anciens salariés seront facilitées, tandis que dans les sociétés à capitaux publics, les dispositifs d’attribution d’actions aux salariés seront élargis.

À la prochaine…

Ivan

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