Gouvernance mission et composition du conseil d'administration place des salariés
Pour ou contre les salariés au CA ?
Ivan Tchotourian 12 septembre 2016
« Should boards include an employee representative? » de Richard Dunnett dans Director (12 septembre 2016) propose 2 points de vue radicalement différents sur la question.
- Oui pour Stefan Stern, directeur du High Pay Centre
Something is too often lacking from the conversation at board level: an eyewitness account from the shop floor. How easy it is to forget the perspective of ordinary employees, even in the middle of discussi
ons that will have a direct impact on their lives. ‘Consultation’ is, sadly, one of the most abused management terms. It makes practical sense to listen to the views of colleagues before taking decisions that affect them. So introducing the employees’ point of view into the boardroom, through employee representatives, must make sense.
- Non pour Jim Prior, P-DG de The Partners and Lambie-Nairn
The proposal betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how companies work in its failure to distinguish between leadership and governance. In most large companies it is the executive leadership team that makes the decisions which most affect employees, not the board. Yes, corporate leaders should listen to employees but the role of the board should be to identify and act on situations where leaders fail to listen, not to do the listening for them.
À la prochaine…
Ivan Tchotourian
autres publications Gouvernance place des salariés
Employee Participation in Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility : à découvrir !
Ivan Tchotourian 23 août 2016
Nouveau working paper de Martin Gelter pour le compte de l’ECGI intitulé : « Employee Participation in Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility » (Law Working Paper No. 322/2016, juillet 2016).
The chapter investigates the impact of employee participation on the board of directors or supervisory board (particularly codetermination) on corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Conceptually, it is important to distinguish between “internal” and “external” CSR. Internal CSR relates to practices of the firm regarding groups with which it is in a long-term contractual relationship such as employees. Employee participation systems serve to protect employees from shareholder opportunism and shift the balance in the distribution of corporate rents in favor of employees, which is why they clearly have an impact on internal CSR. The situation is much less clear for external CSR, which is concerned with effects of corporate activities that are externalities, for example pollution.
I argue that there may sometimes be a tradeoff between internal and external CSR: If a firm is more profitable because it scores badly in terms of external CSR (e.g. because it habitually pollutes), employees may benefit similarly as shareholders. In fact, the interests of shareholders and employees may be largely aligned in this respect, with both either benefiting or being harmed concurrently.
À la prochaine…
Ivan Tchotourian
Gouvernance normes de droit place des salariés Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale
Salariés et gouvernance : la stakeholder theory en pratique
Ivan Tchotourian 10 août 2016
Voilà la théorie des parties prenantes pleinement appréhendée par le droit ! Le cas de l’entreprise française Morlex démontre que le droit français protège d’autres parties prenantes que les simples actionnaires et que le droit a pleinement un rôle à jouer. Le Monde vient de publier l’issue d’un litige qui opposait entreprise et salariés dans le cadre d’une décision prise en faveur des actionnaires : « Molex : le licenciement de 191 salariés jugé « sans cause réelle ni sérieuse » »
Après des années de combat, les « Molex » obtiennent une victoire de taille. Mardi 9 août, la cour d’appel de Toulouse a jugé « sans cause réelle ni sérieuse » le licenciement de 191 salariés du groupe de connectique automobile Molex, dont l’usine de Villemur-sur-Tarn (Haute-Garonne) a fermé en 2009. La justice a estimé que l’employeur avait agi « avec légèreté » dans ces licenciements et a accordé au total environ 7 millions d’euros d’indemnités
(…) La décision de fermer l’usine de Villemur-sur-Tarn a été prise « alors que le secteur n’était pas en difficulté », a encore jugé la cour d’appel, selon l’avocat. « Tous les rapports révèlent qu’au cours de la période 2004-2009, les dividendes versés aux actionnaires par le groupe ont été multipliés par six et représentaient en 2009 un montant total de 100 millions de dollars (environ 72 millions d’euros, au taux de l’époque) », peut-on en effet lire dans l’arrêt.
À la prochaine…
Ivan Tchotourian
autres publications mission et composition du conseil d'administration Normes d'encadrement Nouvelles diverses place des salariés
Système allemand de codétermination : un modèle exportable ?
Ivan Tchotourian 22 juillet 2016
Alors que Theresa May a fait part de son intérêt d’importer en Grande-Bretagne le système allemand, MM. Horst Eidenmüller, Mathias Habersack, Caspar Behme et Lars Klöhn reviennent sur la pertinence de cette proposition en jetant un regard prudent (de chercheurs !) sur ce système : « Corporate Co-Determination German-Style as a Model for the UK? » (18 juillet 2016).
On 13 July 2016, Theresa May took up office as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Only shortly before, she had made headlines when she proposed to adopt European-style worker representation on the boards of leading companies.
Corporate co-determination hence seems to gain a certain degree of popularity with the British government – which is highly astonishing, considering that it was the UK which most fiercely fought against co-determination on a European level. It was mainly the diverging views of the UK and Germany on co-determination which have thwarted projects like the Draft Fifth Company Law Directive or the establishment of a European Private Company (Societas Privata Europaea, SPE). It is downright ironic that while the UK now shows an interest in co-determination, the concept is being questioned in Germany after decades of lying dormant. The reason for the new German discussion of co-determination are doubts regarding the compatibility of its specific form of co-determination with higher-ranking Union law. This post provides a brief overview of the most recent developments in German co-determination law that were the focus of a joint Oxford/Munich conference at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) in Munich in March 2016.
À la prochaine…
Ivan Tchotourian
autres publications Gouvernance mission et composition du conseil d'administration place des salariés
Article sur la gouvernance des entreprises en Allemagne
Ivan Tchotourian 18 février 2016
Le professeur Klaus Hopt qu’on ne présente plus vient de publier un nouvel article qui intéressera les lecteurs de notre blogue : « The German Law of and Experience with the Supervisory Board » (ECGI, Law Working Paper No. 305/2016).
Together with a number of other countries including China, Germany has a two-tier board system, i.e. its stock corporation law provides for the division between the management board and the supervisory board. This is different from most other countries, for example the USA, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and others.
Both board systems have their assets, yet in principle both fulfil adequately the task of control over management; there is no clear superiority of one of the two of them. The national board systems are highly path-dependent. Germany has had the supervisory board ever since the late 19th century when the state gave up its concession system, i.e. the approval and supervision of corporations by the state, and introduced a mandatory supervisory board to take over this task from the state. Germany strictly refuses to give shareholders the option to choose between the two systems.
Labor codetermination in the supervisory board may be one of the reasons for this refusal. While European legislators have been rather prudent in regulating board matters, there has been a considerable de facto convergence between the two systems. Yet path-dependent divergences remain, as to Germany this is true particularly in respect of quasi-parity and full parity labor codetermination in the board of corporations, but also as regards stakeholder orientation and a codified law of groups of companies featuring corresponding board duties for both parent and subsidiary companies.
The German Stock Corporation Act and the German Corporate Governance Code contain extensive provisions on both the management board and the supervisory board. The provisions on the supervisory board have been considerably reformed since the late 1990s. Today, German corporate governance under the two-tier board system is more or less in line with international good corporate governance.
In Germany there are considerable controversies concerning (i) the diversity requirements of 2015, (ii) the definition of independence for supervisory board candidates, (iii) the pros and cons of mandatory quasi-parity and full-parity labor codetermination and (iv) the role of the non-binding German Corporate Governance Code. The article pursues two goals: It informs a non-German audience on the regulation of the supervisory board in Germany, both by law and code, highlighting major current problems and controversies, and it undertakes a functional assessment of the experience with and the functioning of the supervisory board in a comparative perspective.
À la prochaine…
Ivan Tchotourian
