objectifs de l’entreprise | Page 2

Intéressante tribune dans La presse par Milville Tremblay : « Faire ce qui est juste » (14 juillet 2020). Cela semble une évidence mais il est bon de le rappeler !

Extrait :

Faire ce qui est juste, c’est placer la barre plus haut que la légalité des décisions et la satisfaction des seuls actionnaires. Même dans l’adversité, on s’attend aujourd’hui à ce que les dirigeants tiennent compte des besoins légitimes de toutes les parties prenantes de l’entreprise : les employés, les clients, les fournisseurs, les gouvernements, la société en général, l’environnement et, bien sûr, les actionnaires.

(…) Considérer ne veut pas dire donner raison à tous ou nuire à personne. Une compagnie n’est pas l’État-providence. Parfois les dirigeants doivent prendre des décisions qui font mal, mais beaucoup dépend de la manière.

L’opinion publique juge sévèrement ceux qui exigent des sacrifices de tous — sans toucher à leurs propres privilèges, comme on l’a vu chez Bombardier.

(…) Le tribunal de l’opinion publique tranche vite et sans appel. La bonne réputation d’une entreprise prend des années à bâtir et se brise en un instant. Non seulement les dirigeants doivent-ils prendre des décisions justes, mais aussi savoir communiquer avec franchise, surtout s’il y a eu faute. Ceux qui espèrent que leurs bourdes passeront inaperçues courent un risque élevé.

Les bailleurs de fonds exercent aussi une pression accrue sur les patrons. Un nombre croissant de grands gestionnaires d’actifs intègrent les dimensions ESG (pour environnement, social et gouvernance) dans la sélection des sociétés en portefeuille. Les grandes caisses de retraite publiques canadiennes, telle la Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, sont du nombre. Ces gestionnaires de fonds commencent à retirer leur appui aux dirigeants qui s’entêtent dans l’erreur et aux administrateurs qui les tolèrent, leur adressent des remontrances derrière les portes closes ou préfèrent les actions d’un concurrent, qui fait ce qui est juste.

(…) On s’attend aujourd’hui à ce que les dirigeants saisissent rapidement les changements de valeurs portés par l’air du temps, ce qui n’est pas évident pour ceux qui s’isolent avec des gens qui pensent comme eux. Il est trop tard, s’ils attendent de réagir à ce qui est devenu évident.

En matière de gouvernance, on regrette les trop lents progrès pour faire place aux femmes à la haute direction et dans les conseils d’administration.

Et si on décante le mouvement Black Lives Matters, on réalise que la diversité ne se limite pas au sexe. Il ne s’agit pas seulement d’une question d’équité, mais d’intégrer des perspectives variées pour de meilleures décisions.

Le profit n’est plus une finalité, mais une exigence pour assurer la croissance à long terme de l’entreprise. Sans profit, les sources de capital se tarissent et avec elles la capacité d’investir et d’innover.

Mais au-delà des profits, les dirigeants doivent réfléchir à l’utilité sociale de leur entreprise, comme le recommande la Business Roundtable, une association de PDG américains. Le piège, comme d’autres modes en management, est qu’il n’en résultera qu’un slogan, que les employés découvriront creux.

Le regard des employés est souvent plus cynique que celui du public, car ils sont mieux placés pour déceler les écarts entre le discours et la réalité. Les dirigeants qui posent des gestes cohérents et qui reconnaissent les inévitables manquements ont de meilleures chances de mobiliser leurs troupes. Les travailleurs du savoir, particulièrement les milléniaux, ne s’achètent plus avec un bon salaire et une table de billard. Ils veulent aussi que l’entreprise reflète leurs valeurs.

La crise braque les projecteurs sur la manière dont la gouvernance traite la dimension sociale de l’entreprise, soit les lettres G et S des critères ESG. La préoccupation pour le E de l’environnement n’a pas disparu et j’y reviendrai prochainement.

En effet, la plupart des patrons ont posé des gestes énergiques pour protéger la santé de leurs employés et de leurs clients. Quelques-uns se sont lancés dans la production de matériel de protection sanitaire. Plusieurs ont sabré leur salaire à l’annonce de mises à pied, bien que certains vont se refaire avec de nouvelles options d’achat d’actions à prix déprimé.

Les exemples d’entreprises sur la sellette se multiplient. Facebook fait face au boycottage de grands annonceurs pour n’avoir pas éradiqué les discours haineux de sa plateforme. Adidas est durement critiquée pour étrangler ses fournisseurs. Amazon, dénoncée pour négliger la santé de ses travailleurs durant la pandémie. Plus près de nous, Ubisoft clouée au pilori pour avoir fermé les yeux sur le harcèlement de ses employées. Pas besoin d’être devin pour anticiper les critiques des sociétés qui auront bénéficié de l’aide publique tout en recourant aux paradis fiscaux.

À la prochaine…

Dans « Beware of the Panacea of Stakeholder-friendly Corporate Purposes », le professeur Marco Ventoruzzo propose une critique sévèrement de l’ouverture de la gouvernance d’entreprise aux parties prenantes (Oxford Business Law Blog, 13 avril 2020). À réfléchir…

Extrait :

In this short essay (…), I take issue with the relevance and effectiveness of ’corporate purpose’ as a form of private ordering (eg, as a bylaws provision), or in other sources of soft-law (self-regulation in corporate governance codes, declarations of business associations, etc). I challenge whether these are, in fact, effective tools to induce greater commitment toward stakeholders.

(…) My possible disagreement with Mayer and other similar approaches and initiatives—or, more precisely, with a possible reading of these approaches and initiatives—lays in the excessive trust and emphasis that has been reserved to formulas concerning the purpose of the corporation and their possible consequences. Mayer argues that the corporate contract should include a reference to stakeholders and general social interests beyond value for shareholders, suggesting that this simple trick would have a meaningful impact on business conduct.

(…) The reasons are obvious.

First, these formulas are so broad, vague and ephemeral that they cannot possibly represent a compass for corporate action; they cannot provide meaningful guidance for virtually any specific corporate decision that implies a (legitimate) tradeoff between the interests of different stakeholders. Also, as precedents show, these formulas can be used even less to invoke the violation of directors’ duties and their liability. This conclusion is inevitable because the very essence of the agency relationship, the crucial function of a director or executive, is exactly mediating and balancing the different and often conflicting interests that converge on the corporation in an uncertain and evolving scenario. The idea of constraining the necessary discretion of directors within the boundaries of a simple purpose declaration is no better than the idea of writing in the contract with a painter that her work must be a masterpiece. Such an attempted shortcut to real value is self-evidently flawed.

Second, multiplying the goals and interests that directors must or can pursue, if it can have any effect at all, by definition increases their flexibility and discretion and makes it easier to justify, ex ante and ex post, very different choices. Without being cynical, from this perspective it is not surprising that these formulas are often welcomed, if not sponsored, by business associations and interest groups linked to managers, executives and entrenched shareholders.

Third, self-regulation and private ordering are often a way to avoid or delay the adoption of more stringent statutory or regulatory provisions. The former might be more or less effective, but they might also create an illusion of responsibility. The risk of putting too much trust into the beneficial consequences of these formulas is a disregard for more biting mandatory provisions, which may be necessary to avoid externalities and other market failures.

À la prochaine…

Les entreprises et les banques canadiennes semblent avoir fait le choix de la RSE et des parties prenantes comme l’illustre cet article : « Canadian companies can care about more than profit, and could pay a price if they don’t «  (Financial Post, 3 juin 2020).

Extrait :

It is not the first time a leader with a fiduciary responsibility waded into the public discourse. In January, Michael McCain, chief executive of Maple Leaf Foods Inc., used Twitter to criticize the White House for creating geopolitical conditions that led to Iran’s military destroying a Ukrainian airliner carrying more than 170 people, including 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents.  

(…) Corporate stances on environmental, social and political issues are becoming more common. And in Canada, a change to corporate law last year freed executives of some companies to expand their mandates beyond simply maximizing shareholder returns without fear of legal reprisal.

(…) “Companies and investors are beginning to recognize that what happens out there in the real world is arguably even more important than what happens on their spreadsheets and terminals,” said Kevin Thomas, chief executive of the Shareholder Association for Research and Education, a not-for-profit group focused on responsible investing. 

The responses by the heads of some of Canada’s biggest companies to the protests in the United States, as well as their various attempts to assist customers during the coronavirus pandemic, come as companies are also embracing more “stakeholder” capitalism, wherein the raison d’être for firms is more than just returning cash to shareholders. 

(…) Stakeholder capitalism was the theme of this year’s World Economic Forum’s gathering in Davos, Switzerland, where one of Masrani’s peers, Royal Bank of Canada chief executive Dave McKay, was in attendance. 

“As trust in governments wanes, and the complexity of society’s problems grows, companies are charting their own course on environment, social and governance issues, to maintain public confidence in business and ensure the prosperity of communities that business serves,” McKay wrote in January. 

On Tuesday, McKay published a post on LinkedIn stating he was “personally outraged at the senseless and tragic deaths in the U.S., which are clearly symptomatic of ongoing racial discrimination and injustice, and I know we are not immune to it in Canada.”

A year ago, Parliament passed legislation that amended the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA), which lays out the legal and regulatory framework for thousands of federally incorporated firms, to spell out in greater detail how directors and company officers could meet their legal responsibility to “act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation.”

The updated law states that directors and officers may consider shareholders, as well as employees, retirees, creditors, consumers and governments when setting corporate strategy. The law also now states that both the environment and “the long-term interests of the corporation” can be taken into consideration.

À la prochaine…

C’est sous ce titre que les professeurs Gatti et Ondersma amène à une réflexion critique sur l’ouverture de l’objectif des entreprises à la théorie des parties prenantes : « Can a Broader Corporate Purpose Redress Inequality? The Stakeholder Approach Chimera » (4 mars 2020).

Extrait (tiré de l’entrevue suivante « Can a Broader Corporate Purpose Redress Inequality? » :

Our paper also rebuts the premise that shareholder primacy is a key contributor to economic stagnation and inequality. To be sure, shareholder primacy may have contributed to concentration and monopsony in labor markets, excessive executive compensation, the decline in workers’ prerogatives, and tax cuts. But so might the stakeholder approach. Note that a stakeholder approach can hardly fix the central drivers of stagnation and inequality. Globalization, technology, and education cannot be addressed by corporate boardrooms alone. Similarly, collective action dynamics suggest that we cannot expect boards to retreat from further concentration. Experiences with constituency statutes and the battles between large corporations and organized labor tell us that boards won’t improve worker protections without regulation. Implementing legislative or regulatory measures would be much more effective in addressing stagnation and inequality than would be a change in corporate purpose.

In fact, stakeholderism is likely counter-productive. It would give corporations both a sword and a shield with which to defend the status quo.

First, managers and directors can play offense by expanding lobbying efforts, purportedly in the interest of all stakeholders, thus risking corporate capture of the reformist agenda. Second, corporations can deploy stakeholderism defensively by arguing that no direct regulation is needed.  Like others, we take a cynical view of the Business Roundtable’s Statement on Corporate Purpose and Martin Lipton’s “New Paradigm,” which includes regulatory preemption as an express purpose. Meanwhile, a switch to a stakeholder approach would require diverting momentum for change into significant political capital in order for it to be adopted – and once adopted, enshrined in against further change.  Thus, the pursuit of a stakeholder approach would deplete time, energy, and resources necessary to pass reforms to reduce inequality, such as tax, antitrust, and labor measures – precisely the changes most likely to meaningfully distribute power and resources to employees and other weaker constituents.

The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbates this concern.  As many businesses cannot survive without government aid, some have accepted conditions for receiving bailout money, primarily with respect to stock buy-backs and dividend payouts. We speculate that, at some point, businesses might find it convenient to simply offer, in exchange for further government relief, a formal adoption of a stakeholder approach in their charter.  This would preempt more onerous restrictions while preserving the status quo.

As disastrous as the current economic situation is, it also offers a rare opportunity to rethink and possibly reset certain policies. There is little choice but to depart from the tradition of tinkering with corporate governance and instead identify more effective tools to address inequality (mainly in labor, antitrust, and tax laws). This will undoubtedly require greater collaboration across fields and disciplines.

À la prochaine…

Martin Lipton, William Savitt et Karessa L. Cain ont publié sur le Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance un intéressant papier intitulé : « On the Purpose of the Corporation » (27 mai 2020).

Extrait :

The growing view that corporations should take into account environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues in running their businesses, and resistance from those who believe that companies should be managed solely to maximize share price, has intensified the focus on the more fundamental question of corporate governance: what is the purpose of the corporation?

The question has elicited an immense range of proposed answers. The British Academy’s Future of the Corporation Project, led by Colin Mayer, suggests that the purpose of the corporation is to provide profitable solutions to problems of people and planet, while not causing harm. The Business Roundtable has articulated a fundamental commitment of corporations to deliver value to all stakeholders, each of whom is essential to the corporation’s success. Each of the major US-based index funds has also expressed their views about the purpose of the corporations in which they invest, which, considered collectively, can be summarized as the pursuit of sustainable business strategies that take into account ESG factors in order to drive long-term value creation. On the other hand, the Council of Institutional Investors, some leading economists and law professors, and some activist hedge funds and other active investors continue to advocate a narrow scope of corporate purpose that is focused exclusively on maximizing shareholder value. The Covid-19 pandemic has brought into sharp focus the inequality in our society that, in considerable measure, is attributable to maximizing shareholder value at the expense of employees and communities.

For our part, we have supported stakeholder governance for over 40 years—first, to empower boards of directors to reject opportunistic takeover bids by corporate raiders, and later to combat short-termism and ensure that directors maintain the flexibility to invest for long-term growth and innovation. We continue to advise corporations and their boards that they may exercise their business judgment to manage for the benefit of all stakeholders over the long term.

As the pandemic disrupts settled expectations and provokes fresh perspectives, we believe it is critical to the vitality of our economic system for corporations—and the asset managers and investors who hold their shares—to recognize that ESG and stakeholder purpose are necessary elements of sustainable business success, and to engage on a regular basis to rationalize their views as to governance and stewardship. The roadmap for this shared understanding is elaborated in The New Paradigm: A Roadmap for an Implied Corporate Governance Partnership Between Corporations and Investors to Achieve Sustainable Long-Term Investment and Growth, which we developed for the World Economic Forum in 2016.

These imperatives lead us to a simple formulation of corporate purpose:

The purpose of a corporation is to conduct a lawful, ethical, profitable and sustainable business in order to create value over the long-term, which requires consideration of the stakeholders that are critical to its success (shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, creditors and communities), as determined by the corporation and the board of directors using its business judgment and with regular engagement with shareholders, who are essential partners in supporting the corporation’s pursuit of this mission.

This conception of purpose is broad enough to apply to every business entity but at the same time supplies clear principles for action and engagement. The basic objective of sustainable profitability recognizes that the purpose of for-profit corporations is to create value for investors. The requirement of lawful and ethical conduct ensures minimum standards of corporate social compliance. Going further, the broader mandate to take into account corporate stakeholders—including communities, which is not limited to local communities, but comprises society and the economy at large—directs boards to exercise their business judgment within the scope of this broader responsibility. The requirement of regular shareholder engagement acknowledges accountability to investors, but also shared responsibility with shareholders for responsible long-term corporate stewardship.

Fulfilling this purpose will require different approaches for each corporation, dependent on its industry, history, governance and other factors. We expect that board committees—focusing on stakeholders, ESG issues and the stewardship obligations of shareholders—may be useful or even necessary for some companies. But for all the differences among companies, there is an important unifying commonality: corporate action, taken against the backdrop of this view of corporate purpose, will be fully protected by the business judgment rule, so long as it reflects the decisions of unconflicted directors acting upon careful deliberation.

Executed in this way, stakeholder governance is more consistent with a value-creation mandate than the shareholder primacy model. Directors and managers enjoy broad authority to act for the corporate entity they represent, over the long term, balancing its many rights and obligations and taking into account both risks and opportunities, in regular consultation with shareholders. Directors will not be forced to act as if any one interest trumps all others, with potentially destructive consequences, but will instead have latitude to make decisions that reasonably balance the interests of all constituencies and operate to the benefit of the sustainable, long-term business success of the corporation as a whole.

À la prochaine…

En voilà tout un titre ! Le professeur Brian Cheffins livre tout un article sur SSRN : « Brian R. Cheffins, « Stop Blaming Milton Friedman! », 11 mars 2020, University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 9/2020.

Résumé :

A 1970 New York Times essay on corporate social responsibility by Milton Friedman is often said to have launched a shareholder-focused reorientation of managerial priorities in America’s public companies. The essay correspondingly is a primary target of those critical of a shareholder-centric approach to corporate governance. This paper argues that it is erroneous to blame (or credit) Milton Friedman for the rise of shareholder primacy in corporate America. In order for Friedman’s views to be as influential as has been assumed, his essay should have constituted a fundamental break from prevailing thinking that changed minds with some alacrity. In fact, what Friedman said was largely familiar to readers in 1970 and his essay did little to change managerial priorities at that point in time. The shareholder-first mentality that would come to dominate in corporate America would only take hold in the mid-1980s. This occurred due to an unprecedented wave of hostile takeovers rather than anything Friedman said and was sustained by a dramatic shift in favor of incentive-laden executive pay. Correspondingly, the time has come to stop blaming him for America’s shareholder-oriented capitalism.

À la prochaine…

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, on revient toujours aux B Corporation notamment la Public Benefit Corporation du Delaware ! Voici une des premières études empiriques menées sur le sujet : Michael B. Dorff, James Hicks et Steven Solomon Davidoff , « The Future or Fancy? An Empirical Study of Public Benefit Corporations » (4 février 2020).

Une belle question que se posent les auteurs : Using our novel dataset, we can discern whether for-profit investment is occurring in PBCs, and if so, whether it is different in kind from ordinary early stage investment.

Extrait :

The PBC has stirred much debate and speculation about the future of
the corporation. Some have called it the future while others decried the
form as mere public relations or purpose washing. In this article we
have attempted to add data to the debate. Using a hand-collected
sample of all Delaware-registered PBCs that received investment
between 2013 and 2018 we examine whether PBCs are the future or
mere fancy.
We find that neither hypothesis holds. Instead, we find that there are
295 PBCs which have received investment from VC funds amounting
to over $2.5 billion in the aggregate. This investment is significant
because it shows that the PBC form is not a failure and that it is
capable of attracting for-profit investment, a marker of success. This
investment is coming not just from pro-social VCs but from top-tier
firms.
Nonetheless, we also find that PBCs are being funded over a wide
range of mostly consumer-focused industries (banking, food,
education, technology, and more), implying that the form is a
secondary consideration to the for-profit motive. In other words, the
PBC form is most likely to receive VC funding when the PBC’s
business strategy suggests the form will benefit a for-profit mission.
Our evidence also suggests that PBC round sizes are smaller than their
purely profit-seeking peers, implying that VCs are taking less risk with
these forms than with traditional corporations.
Ultimately, we theorize that, based on our findings, the future course
of the PBC is uncertain.

À la prochaine…