actualités internationales | Page 3

Dans FastCompany, le journaliste Christopher Zara publie un intéressant article reprenant une étude menée actuellement par The Conference Board sur la réduction des rémunérations : « Pandemic pay cuts: The growing list of companies reducing salaries during COVID-19 ». Le constat est éloquent pour l’application de la RSE et de la théorie des parties prenantes par les entreprises, je vous le laisse découvrir ci-dessous :

Extrait :

More than 30 million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits since the economy first began to unravel due to the coronavirus pandemic. That figure may not count untold millions of freelancers or self-employed individuals who are also out of work, nor does it factor in countless people who simply couldn’t get through to their state labor department to file a claim. And of those who are still working, many are making considerably less money due to reduced hours.

And then there are the company-imposed pay cuts. Over the past few weeks, the Conference Board has been tracking pay reduction announcements for publicly traded companies, using SEC filings by firms listed in the Russell 3000 Index.

Some the findings may surprise you: For instance, the salary reductions are not just hitting top executives and their fat bonuses. At last count, 61% of the affected companies applied pay reductions to the base salaries of senior managers who make less than top-tier executives, the Conference Board says. It adds that 11% of all companies in the index announced base pay cuts between March 1 and April 24.

The good news is, the announcements peaked in early April and have declined a bit in recent weeks. The bad news? The group anticipates a “second wave” of salary reductions could emerge in the weeks ahead as the ripple effects of COVID-19 continue to wreak havoc on bottom lines.

The Conference Board posted the insights in a new report that also includes a wealth of data visualizations and the full list of companies. It says the list will be updated weekly as long as the crisis continues. The data is being compiled in collaboration with consulting firm Semler Brossy and Esgauge Analytics. It shows that the industries hardest hit by the coronavirus are what you would expect, including retail and hospitality.

À la prochaine…

Bel article qui amène à réfléchir : Akshaya Kamalnath, « Shareholder Primacy in the Time of Coronavirus », Oxford Business Law Blog, 7 avril 2020.

Extrait :

It has become fashionable in these troubled times to write about how the coronavirus (or Covid-19) situation shows that the writer’s favourite policies are the best ones. Trite as it may be, I don’t want to miss the opportunity to explain and defend shareholder primacy as a theory / principle followed in corporate law.

Do companies have an ethical obligation to take care of employees during the coronavirus pandemic? If not, why are companies asking employees to work from home and even paying employees when they are not coming in to work? Even companies in the gig economy like Uber are stepping up and offering unexpected support to their drivers whom they have refused to consider as employees. For instance, Uber announced that it would offer 14 days of financial assistance to drivers affected by Covid-19. Similarly, to accommodate the demand from workplaces and educational institutions to switch to working online, tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Zoom have begun offering some of their products’ features for free. Why are they going well beyond what current laws require them to do?

Have they begun to embrace stakeholderism (the idea that companies should service all stakeholders equally) and, if so, can we expect such continued benefits being offered to employees in need even after the pandemic has passed? I’d answer both parts of this question in the negative. In my view, these companies are guided by shareholder primacy (the idea that shareholder interests have primacy over that of other stakeholders).

The first and most obvious reason is that shareholders would want directors of the company they have invested in to step up to the occasion when a crisis as big as a pandemic is staring us in the face. While it is normally assumed that shareholder interests translate into profit-making or wealth maximization, intelligent directors would understand that a crisis calls for a different understanding of what shareholders want. The second possible reason for companies to act in the interests of stakeholders at this time is to enhance their reputation. A company making accommodations during a time of crisis might forego some profits in the short-term but will have reputational gains in the long term. The consideration of reputational incentives is not to suggest that companies acting altruistically should be seen as cynical. On the contrary, it is laudable that the directors of these companies have acted in the interests of the company by taking care of relevant stakeholders when it was most needed. The fact that company reputation was one of the variables in the calculus should be noted positively because that shows that shareholder primacy ensures companies act in the interests of other stakeholders when it is most essential. A third reason is that by offering benefits to employees (or independent contractors as in the case of Uber’s drivers) or customers as in the case of the tech companies, the companies have ensured that the relevant stakeholders (customers and employees / independent contractors) would want to work or continue to work with these companies.

If shareholder primacy leads to beneficial outcomes, why is it so reviled? Shareholder primacy is often confused with a myopic focus on short-term profits. To be sure, the company law of most countries requires directors to act in the best interests of the company and, in determining which interests within the company are to be prioritised, to give primacy to that of shareholders. The default assumption is that most shareholders would want to maximise the wealth that they have invested in the company. However, it is left to directors to consider other relevant interests where they are in the best interests of the company. As I have argued above, it was clearly in the interests of the company to prioritise various stakeholders’ interests and act accordingly, and in this instance they have acted accordingly. Not every situation has such an easy answer and so it is left to directors to choose the course of action best suited to the company, with the interests of shareholders being ultimately prioritised.

What happens after the pandemic has passed? While the coronavirus situation is a big crisis and companies have been stepping up, decisions prioritising the interests of one stakeholder over those of others are routine, even in calmer situations, or where a company alone is facing a crisis of some sort. Take for example, employees’ complaints about toxic work culture and harassment, which we now know was the case with Uber in the past. Often the response is to keep the issue under wraps or refuse to address the particular stakeholder’s needs. This unsavoury behaviour cannot however be attributed to either shareholder primacy or stakeholderism. We would expect that shareholders would want companies to clean their house as soon as they know there is trouble so that they are not at the receiving end of the law suit at a later date and, more importantly, because shareholders would want talented employees to be retained within the company. Unfortunately, the unsavoury behaviour is simply an expression of human nature in some cases and better incentives to prevent such behaviour need to be devised. Similarly, for concerns of other stakeholders, the environment for instance, environment protection and climate change laws would constrain directors’ actions rather than relying on principles of either shareholder primacy or stakeholderism to do the job.

All this is to say that there are problems with how companies are run and we need innovative solutions to create better incentives rather than falling back on paying lip service to stakeholderism as the Business Roundtable recently did in its 2019 statement.

À la prochaine…

Le 21 avril 2020, Novethic m’apprend que un grand débat se joue au Parlement : plusieurs députés veulent conditionner les aides d’État liées à la crise du Covid-19 à des bonnes pratiques environnementales et sociales. L’amendement retenu demande à ce que l’agence de participation de l’État veille à ce que les entreprises aidées intègrent pleinement et de manière exemplaire les objectifs de responsabilité sociétale (RSE) dans leur stratégie, notamment en matière climatique. Le point sur ce qu’il implique vraiment.

Pour en savoir plus : Novethic, « Aide de 20 milliards d’euros : l’État mise sur la bonne volonté des entreprises pour être responsables ».

Extrait :

Les entreprises aidées devront être « exemplaires » en matière de RSE

Plusieurs amendements étaient examinés vendredi 16 et mercredi 22 avril au Parlement pour conditionner les participations de l’État dans les entreprises à des critères environnementaux et sociaux. C’est celui de Bérangère Abba (LREM, Haute Marne) qui a été retenu à la fois par les députés et les sénateurs. Il vise à ce que les entreprises ainsi aidées « intègrent pleinement et de manière exemplaire les objectifs de responsabilité sociale, sociétale et environnementale dans leur stratégie, notamment en matière de lutte contre le changement climatique« .

L’Agence de participation de l’État aux avant-postes…mais sans réel outil

C’est à l’APE, l’agence de participation de l’État, de « veiller » à ce que les entreprises aidées soient « exemplaires » en matière de RSE. Or il n’existe pas de labels ou de note garantie par l’État pour distinguer les bonnes démarches, par ailleurs largement volontaires, des entreprises. Pour l’avocat Arnaud Gossement, il y a donc deux façons de voir les choses. « Verre à moitié plein : la loi donne une valeur au volet RSE de la doctrine de l’APE et fixe bien une condition à l’allocation des ressources supplémentaires de ce projet de loi de finance rectificative vers les entreprises stratégiques vulnérables. Autre intérêt : le climat n’est pas le seul objectif. Verre à moitié vide : c’est l’APE qui doit « veiller » au respect de simples objectifs qui restent à définir dans un référentiel.« 

À la prochaine…

Bel article publié le 1er avril 2020 dans la Harvard Business Review intitulé : « Coronavirus Is Putting Corporate Social Responsibility to the Test ». La RSE passera-t-elle le texte de l’empirique ?

Extrait :

A great many large companies talk about having a social purpose and set of values, or about how much they care for their employees and other stakeholders. Now is the time for them to make good on that commitment. Research suggests that people only truly believe that their company has a purpose and clear values when they see management making a decision that sacrifices short-term profitability for the sake of adhering to those values.

(…) Here are some things that companies can do to help their employees, small suppliers, health care providers, and communities.

Employees. What companies do to help their laid-off employees  — above and beyond what is required or expected — will be remembered and repaid in increased loyalty, higher productivity, and a lasting reputational benefit for many years to come.

Continuing to pay wages, even at less than full pay, is one option. Walmart, Microsoft, Apple, and Lyft have all made commitments to continue payments to hourly workers for at least the first two weeks of lockdown. This is essential not only as a matter of corporate responsibility; it will also substantially reduce the costs of rehiring employees when the economy returns to normal.

Lending money to employees is another option. Left on their own, many employees will turn to the exorbitant charges of credit card debt and payday lenders who will levy a 20%-plus interest rate at a time when corporations can borrow at 2% or 3%. That difference in interest rates can be the difference between bankruptcy and economic survival. Corporations should use their corporate credit and collateral to arrange low- or no-interest loans to their employees. They should calculate employees’ take-home pay after payroll deductions, and ask their banks to make loans available equal to a month of net wages at 3% interest, guaranteed by the corporation. Employees can pay the loans back over the next year out of their salaries when they return to work.

In all likelihood, very few of a company’s employees will actually require medical care, but if they have no insurance, that too can bankrupt them. Companies should offer to cover the medical expenses of all non-insured employees — probably somewhere between 2% and 5% will actually incur significant bills, and companies can negotiate with their insurer an additional premium to cover them. Sadly, employees may also need help to cover funeral costs for the few who succumb.

Small suppliers. Companies should offer advance payments to their small suppliers, giving them cash today for goods that they will need when they return to production. It’s the corporate equivalent of buying gift cards to keep your local store in business.

Health care providers. Some parts of the world face severe shortages in basic medical supplies, but as a global company you have access to resources everywhere. The need for masks in China and South Korea has waned while it is still growing in the United States and Europe. Companies should purchase and ship supplies from where they are available to where they are needed. They should tap their inventory of whatever they have that might help, send it where it will do the most good, and take the loss.

Communities. Major corporations should use their foundations to aid food pantries, free clinics, and other nonprofits in addressing immediate needs of the communities where they have operations.

Pour rappel, j’ai publié récemment un billet de blogue sur Contact partageant mes réflexions sur les liens entre COVID-19, entreprises et RSE : « La RSE à l’heure de la COVID-19 » (26 mars 2020).

À la prochaine…

Très intéressant article du Financial Times au titre très clair : « Investors and politicians demand coronavirus pay cuts » (4 avril 2020). L’Angleterre démontre un changement de perspective dans le domaine de la rémunération de la haute direction… Un exemple à suivre ?

À la prochaine…