autres publications | Page 2

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, l’UNEP vient de publier un très intéressant rapport sur les liens entre droits de l’homme et finance durable (ici).

UNEP’s Inquiry into the Design of a Sustainable Financial System has partnered with the Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB) to produce a report examining the relationship between finance and human rights. It concludes that a sustainable future for all requires a coherent vision of how the layers of society, economy, environment, and finance interact, and the role of the financial system in facilitating sustainable livelihoods and societies.

Morceau choisi pour le côté « régulation » :

There is far greater scope for directing finance through policy and regulatory interventions to avoid harm to human rights at a minimum, and to maximize the potential in fulfilling human rights. The Paper identifies a number of opportunities to build on. Perhaps the most important starting point is sparking an interest with regulators to even consider the topic of human rights. There are a few nascent signs: the impact of the financial crisis and growing inequality has sparked, if not ignited, an interest among some regulators in considering the need for inclusive capitalism where human rights can play an important role in framing considerations around inequality. The growing attention to unwanted environmental and social externalities of current modes of production and the social tensions this can cause is beginning to register with financial supervision authorities. Regulators are worried about the identified need to rebuild trust in the sector, where financial leaders take values as seriously as valuation. In other words, the conversation has begun but further work is needed: (…)

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Le World Economic Forum vient de publier son dernier rapport « Global Risks Report » qui appelle à ce que les critères ESG soient davantage intégrés dans le domaine financier. Ce rapport constate que les investisseurs sont souvent peu mis au fait de l’importance des menaces et que la gestion des risques de régulation et du climat dans les décision de court-terme et dans les données financières est indispensable pour que les investissements intègrent le risque climatique.

The Global Risks Report 2016 features perspectives from nearly 750 experts on the perceived impact and likelihood of 29 prevalent global risks over a 10-year timeframe. The risks are divided into five categories: economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological.

The report also examines the interconnections among the risks, and through that analysis explores three areas where global risks have the greatest potential to impact society. These are the concept of the “(dis)empowered citizen”, the impact of climate change on food security, and the potential of pandemics to threaten social cohesion.

The report also takes an in-depth look at the how the global security landscape could evolve in the future; sharing the outcomes of a year-long study to examine current trends and possible driving forces for the future of international security.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

À l’hiver 2015, le Japon a publié son nouveau code de gouvernance d’entreprise suite au lancement de la stratégie de revitalisation du Japon lancé en 2014. C’est le 1er juin 2015 que ce nouveau code est entré en vigueur.

Dès l’introduction, les mots sont lâchés : « In this Corporate Governance Code, “corporate governance” means a structure for transparent, fair, timely and decisive decision-making by companies, with due attention to the needs and perspectives of shareholders and also customers, employees and local communities ».

Quels principes retrouve-t-on énoncés ?

• Section 1: Securing the Rights and Equal Treatment of Shareholders
• Section 2: Appropriate Cooperation with Stakeholders Other Than Shareholders
• Section 3: Ensuring Appropriate Information Disclosure and Transparency
• Section 4: Responsibilities of the Board
• Section 5: Dialogue with Shareholders

Pour accéder au code de gouvernance intitulé « Japan’s Corporate Governance Code – Seeking Sustainable Corporate Growth and Increased Corporate Value over the Mid- to Long-Term » : cliquez ici.

Pour un commentaire accessible librement sur Internet, vous pourrez aller au lien suivant : ici (cabinet Jones Day). Petit morceau choisi :

The Code takes the « Principles-Based Approach » and « Comply or Explain Approach. » As such, the Code is not prescriptive, and certain principles are purposely drafted in general terms to leave flexibility. The Code expects companies to apply the spirit of the principles set forth under the Code, not follow literally the text of the principles as if they were statutory provisions. The Code leaves room for companies to consider what should work for them to achieve effective corporate governance, and it permits them to decide whether to comply with the principles under the Code or choose not to do so, with a proper explanation of the reasons for not doing so.

Finally, in order to better understand the Code, it is important to know unique features of the Companies Act of Japan, which provides for the three types of corporate governance structures for Japanese listed companies to choose: (i) a company with the board of kansayaku corporate auditors, (ii) a company with three committees (nominating, compensation, and audit committees), and (iii) a company with an audit committee with supervisory functions. Legally, these three types of governance structures are treated equally under Japanese law, and the Code is neutral as to these three governance structures. There are, however, a certain number of Code provisions that are intended to apply primarily to companies with the board of kansayaku corporate auditors since it is not required to have external directors or to have nomination or compensation committees.

Une année auparavant, le Japon par l’intermédiaire de sa Financial Services Agency avait publié son nouveau Stewardship Code (entré en vigueur le 7 avril 2014) : « “Principles for Responsible Institutional Investors” «Japan’s Stewardship Code» – To promote sustainable growth of companies through investment and dialogue ». Les 7 principes énoncés sont les suivants :

1. Institutional investors should have a clear policy on how they fulfill their stewardship responsibilities,and publicly disclose it.
2. Institutional investors should have a clear policy on how they manage conflicts of interest in fulfilling their stewardship responsibilities and publicly disclose it.
3. Institutional investors should monitorinvestee companies so that they can appropriately fulfill their stewardship responsibilities with an orientation towards the sustainable growth of the companies.
4. Institutional investors should seek to arrive at an understanding in common with investee companies and work to solve problems through constructive engagement with investee companies.
5. Institutional investors should have a clear policy on voting and disclosure of voting activity.The policy on voting should not be comprised only of a mechanical checklist; it should be designed to contribute to the sustainable growth of investee companies.
6. Institutional investors in principle should report periodically on how they fulfill their stewardship responsibilities,including their voting responsibilities,to their clients and beneficiaries.
7. To contribute positively to the sustainable growth of investee companies, institutional investors should have in-depth knowledge ofthe investee companies and their business environment and skills and resources needed to appropriately engage with the companies and make proper judgments in fulfilling their stewardship activities.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian