Gouvernance | Page 28

Valérie Landrieu de Les Échos propose une synthèse sur l’importance de bien évaluer les administrateurs. La composition d’un CA est un art difficile qu’Il faut savoir manier…

Les entreprises sont – ou devraient être – en pleine révolution copernicienne mais nombreux sont les conseils d’administration à ne pas se renouveler. Pis, à ne pas se poser la bonne question  : « Les administrateurs que vous avez recrutés hier sont-ils ceux dont l’entreprise aura besoin demain ? » interroge Anne Navez, la présidente de Votre-administrateur. « Après avoir défini le bon profil, il sera temps de s’interroger sur le genre », argumente cette spécialiste de l’accompagnement et de la mise en relation des entreprises et des administrateurs indépendants.

Réflexion de Hayley Robinson sur l’introduction de la représentation des salariés au sein du CA : « Employees on the board: Theresa May’s next big idea? » (Lexology, 22 septembre 2016). L’auteure revient dans ce billet sur b.a-ba entourant cette participation, sur les avantages et les inconvénients et sur l’opportunité de la mettre en place en Grande-Bretagne.

Reviewing corporate governance appears high on the new Government’s agenda. Along with executive remuneration and a greater role for shareholders in the nomination and appointment of directors, there are signs of a greater role for employees too.

In one of her first speeches after having secured the Conservative nomination, Theresa May said this:

“I want to see changes in the way that big business is governed. The people who run big businesses are supposed to be accountable to outsiders, to non-executive directors, who are supposed to ask the difficult questions, think about the longterm and defend the interests of shareholders. In practice, they are drawn from the same, narrow social and professional circles as the executive team and – as we have seen time and time again – the scrutiny they provide is just not good enough. So if I’m Prime Minister, we’re going to change that system – and we’re going to have not just consumers represented on company boards, but workers as well.”

Introducing a requirement to have employees on company boards would represent a major structural change in the UK corporate governance regime, moving it closer to the German model where collaborative decision-making has been the norm for several decades. Mrs May has not yet brought forward any detailed plans to assist firms in understanding precisely what she intends to introduce.

Qu’en penser ?

Whether or not Mrs May’s Government proceeds with any move to introduce mandatory employee participation on boards remains to be seen. Even if it does, it seems unlikely that worker representation will reach the scale and power it has in German corporations. The UK’s single company board model, and the fact that boards might range from the very small to the very large makes it harder to devise sensible numerical limits that would fit all UK companies. The very strict statutory duties imposed on UK directors might also prove a difficult hurdle – will worker representatives be directors? If not, will they simply be second-class citizens on the board?

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, le Parlement devrait adopter d’ici à la fin du mois d’octobre la loi Sapin 2 qui impose notamment un vote contraignant des actionnaires des sociétés cotées en AG concernant la rémunération des dirigeants. Une démarche à risques estime Fabrice Rémon, Fondateur de Gouvernance en Actions.

Accéder ici à capsule-vidéo

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, la province de l’Alberta a décidé d’aller de l’avant avec le thème de la féminisation des CA. Aussi, sa commission des valeurs mobilières vient-elle de lancer une consultation publique sur un projet de type « se conformer ou s’expliquer » (Janet McFarlane, « Alberta Securities Commission proposes gender diversity rule », The Globe and Mail, 14 septembre 2014). Pour rappel, cette règle du « conformer ou s’expliquer » a été mis en place dans la plupart des autres provinces canadiennes à l’exception de l’Alberta, de la Colombie-Britannique et de l’Île du Prince Édouard..

Alberta’s securities regulator is reversing course and has unveiled a proposal to adopt new reporting rules requiring companies to disclose their approach to gender diversity on their boards.

The Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) said Wednesday it will seek public comment on a proposal to adopt “comply or explain” rules requiring companies to explain their policies regarding the representation of women on their boards and executive positions, including whether they have internal targets for women.

The rule, open for comment until Oct. 14, would not require companies to add women to their ranks or adopt a diversity policy, but would require them to explain why they have opted not to have one. Companies would also have to report on the proportion of women on their boards and in executive officer roles.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Marc T. Moore offre un beau papier sur la place de la valeur actionnariale en Grande-Bretagne dans une perspective historique : « Shareholder Primacy, Labour and the Historic Ambivalence of UK Company Law » (Oxford University, 20 septembre 2016).

Most directors and senior managers of British companies would likely regard it as trite law that, in undertaking their functions, they are accountable first and foremost to their employer firm’s general body of shareholders. It follows that the interests of other corporate constituencies – and, in particular, those of employees – must ultimately cede to those of shareholders in the event of conflict. Although frequently taken for granted today, the lexical priority that the British company law framework affords to the interests of shareholders is remarkable, not least when viewed alongside the correspondingly disempowered corporate governance status of labour in the UK.

On first reflection, it is somewhat curious that the interests of employees have not figured more prominently within British company law, especially when one considers the general political disposition of the country in modern times. Throughout the course of the last century, the UK has witnessed 37 years of Labour government (or 42 years if one includes Labour’s participation in the wartime coalition government). And although the UK is acknowledged on the whole as having a more neo-liberal (ie right-wing) political orientation than many of its northern European counterparts, it nonetheless has a comparatively strong social-democratic (ie left-wing) political tradition in relation to other English-speaking and former-Commonwealth countries, at least since the Second World War. It is thus not unreasonable to expect that, at some point during the post-war era, democratic public policy measures might have been taken to effect the direct integration of worker interests into the heart of the British corporate legal structure.

Une de ses conclusion est intéressante :

However, whilst the centrality of shareholders’ interests to the doctrinal and normative fabric of contemporary UK company law is both manifest and incontrovertible, this has curiously not always been the case. With respect to the fundamental question of the proper corporate objective (that is, as to whose interest British company directors are expected to serve while carrying out their functions), UK company law up until 2006 adopted a highly ambiguous position. Moreover, British company law has in the fairly recent past come precariously close to adopting a radically different board representation model, in which worker interests would formally have shared centre-stage with those of shareholders in a similar vein to the traditional German corporate governance model.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian