Nouvelles diverses | Page 3

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…

Bel article de M. Barker sur LinkedIn intitulé : « The irrelevance of agency theory during the Covid-19 crisis » (5 avril 2020). Il est effectivement temps de revoir le modèle de l’agence et sa place comme paradigme central de toute réflexion sur la gouvernance d’entreprise : d’autres modèles existent, il est bon de le rappeler !

Extrait :

The implicit mistrust between principals and agents must be replaced by a pooling of resources and know-how, and a more cooperative attitude to other stakeholders such as employees and society as a whole.

Corporate governance scholars have developed a range of alternative theoretical paradigms through which to embody this more team-based approach, including stewardship theory, stakeholder theory and resource dependency theory. These frameworks seem to offer a more relevant perspective on what we should demand from corporate governance during the crisis.

A first is that non-executive directors should see themselves as sharing more of a common agenda with management. They must be prepared to work side by side with them in order to overcome the profound challenges being faced by most organisations at the current time.

Second, investors will have to exhibit greater trust in boards and management. Once they are satisfied that the right leadership is in place, they need to let them get on with it.

Third, it becomes more important than ever for boards to understand and incorporate into decision-making the different perspectives of groups whose motivation and participation is critical to the survival of the organisation. These will include middle managers, employees, customers, suppliers and the wider community.

Finally, we should not view existing shareholder rights as sacrosanct during the crisis. Shareholder rights are not the same thing as human rights, which should never be seen as negotiable. Rather, they are pragmatic arrangements that have been established in order to underpin the prosperity of the economy as a whole.

À la prochaine…

Dans Board Agenda, M. Lekvall publie un article intéressant intitulé : « Company purpose and profit are not mutually exclusive » (28 février 2020).

Extrait :

The first regards how the concept of a company’s purpose is defined and applied. Traditionally this has been understood as the reason(s) why the company was once started by its founders and why it is currently owned and run by its incumbent shareholders.

This usually—but far from always—includes to make money for the shareholders, but may also involve restrictions and side conditions for the promotion of this aim such as what kind of business to pursue (or not pursue), acceptable risk exposure, etc., as well as due regard of the interests of a range of other “stakeholders” such as employees, customers, suppliers, etc. as well as the society at large.

In real life most companies—and certainly those listed on a stock exchange—have some sort of multidimensional purpose involving the creation of value for the shareholders, while also taking a range of other stakeholder interests duly into regard in order to preserve its long-term “licence to operate” in the eyes of the surrounding society.

The second remark regards the question of who should determine and articulate the company’s purpose. In the current debate this prerogative sometimes appears assigned to the board of the company (or occasionally even to be defined in law) rather than to its shareholders.

This is quite an extreme proposition that would involve a far-reaching transfer of power from the shareholders to the board, thereby largely stripping the owners of the control of their company. In fact it would entail the reversal of much of the achievements of modern corporate governance over the last half-century or so, whereby power has successively been taken back from too often undisciplined and self-seeking boards to the owners. Let’s not allow this unfortunate genie out of the bottle again!

The third remark has to do with the accountability of board directors. The possibility to hold directors legally to account for the discharge of their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders is a cornerstone of modern corporate governance. However, widening this to applying to a broader range of “stakeholders”, as appears to be a widespread view in the debate, would in reality risk to amount to accountability to none. A board held to account for poor performance in terms of some stakeholder interests could always point at having given priority to those of others.

In summary, the realisation of these propositions would amount to no less than a fundamental shift of paradigm with potentially devastating consequences for the governance of companies and the efficiency of the market economy. The good news, however, is that to do so appears largely as an unwarranted overkill.

À la prochaine…

Bel article proposé par la professeure Tsuk Mitchell, Dalia : « From Dodge to eBay: The Elusive Corporate Purpose » (Virginia Law & Business Review, 2019, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 155-211) ! Cet article revient sur la fameuse mission des entreprises en confrontant les visions économiques et socio-politiques qui expliquent une lecture différentes de son contenu.

Résumé :

This article examines the history of the law of corporate purpose. I argue that the seemingly conflicting visions of corporate social responsibility and shareholder wealth maximization, which characterize contemporary debates about the subject, are grounded in two different paradigms for corporate law — a socio-political paradigm and an economic-financial one. Advocates of the socio-political paradigm have historically focused on the power that corporations could exercise in society, while those embracing the economic-financial paradigm expressed concerns about the power that the control group could exercise over the corporation’s shareholders. Over the course of the twentieth century, scholars have debated the merits of each of these paradigms and the concerns associated with them, while judges drew upon the academic and, more importantly, the managerial sentiments and concerns of the era to attach a purpose to corporate law’s doctrine, that is, the ultra vires doctrine in the early twentieth century, the enabling business judgment rule by mid-century, and the laws applicable to evaluating managerial responses to hostile takeovers at the century’s end. Ultimately, the cases seemingly addressing corporate purpose did not endorse wealth maximization or social responsibility as objectives. Rather, they empowered corporate managers to set corporate goals without interference from shareholders or the courts.

À la prochaine…