Responsabilité sociale des entreprises | Page 3

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…

Le 30 avril 2020, Philip Gavin s’est interrogé sur l’intérêt de l’article 172 du Company Act pour les administrateurs et dirigeants dans le contexte de la COVID-19 : « Directors’ Duty under UK Law to Promote the Success of the Company during the COVID-19 Pandemic » (Oxford Business Law Blog).

Extrait :

A nuance to director’s duties in the United Kingdom is the expansive statutory delineation of s 172, which endows numerous considerations for directors when acting to promote the success of the company for the benefit of members. Given the unique circumstances of the present-day commercial sphere and the more humanitarian demands being put to businesses, having a statutory foundation upon which to base non-traditional business strategies may assist effective decision-making and financial reporting.

The initial three considerations enshrined within s 172 are (a) the likely long term consequences of any decision, (b) the interests of employees and (c) the need to foster business relationships with suppliers, customers and others. These factors are of particular relevance for firms who sought justification for voluntary shutdown of businesses prior to the wider governmental shutdown.

(…)

Where production changes become quasi-humanitarian in tone and companies internalise cost in the interim, directors may seek justification through s 172(1)(d) and (e), these being the impact on the community and the desirability of maintaining high business standards respectively.  Accordingly, directors can seek to frame these quasi-humanitarian efforts in long-term reputational terms, thereby engendering prospective communitarian goodwill.

Furthermore, as political pressure mounts, boards may evaluate reputational factors not simply in terms of market reputation, but also in terms of Governmental co-operation. This is particularly so where companies face increased intervention by public authorities through the Civil Contingencies Act. Comparatively, in a recent memorandum the Trump administration has attempted to exert control over the distribution of ventilators by the multinational conglomerate 3M. Cautious of such intervention occurring within their own enterprises, companies may shift business operations to such an extent to signal their compliance and co-operation with public authorities, thereby disincentivising the wholesale overrule of board discretion. 

Within jurisdictions with vaguer duties to act bona fide in the best interests of the company (Delaware, Australia, Ireland), directors may still engage in such quasi-humanitarian efforts. Nevertheless, utilising s 172 to steer directorial judgment may assist effective decision-making, and furthermore guide financial reporting, which mandates s 172 director’s statements.  Given that the tenor of 2020 reports will be likely dominated by COVID-19, UK directors will benefit from the homogenising structure of s 172 when making such disclosures in the coming months.

À la prochaine…

UCLA School of Law vient de publier un rapport d’une dizainede pages sur la gestion du capital humain et son intégration dans la gouvernance des entreprises : « Corporate Governance : The growing Importance of Human Capital Management » (avril 2020).

Extrait :

1. Over the last several years, investors and proxy advisory firms have increasingly focused their attention on environmental, sustainability and governance (ESG) and human capital management (HCM) issues. While there is no one definition of HCM, the term is widely used to cover a very broad range of workforce matters that are of concern to investors and the public as they focus on building long-term value and reducing business and reputational risks. These concerns have resulted in calls for enhanced company disclosures about their HCM practices and processes.

2. Under Delaware and federal law, directors have no duties that are specifically focused on HCM. However, under Delaware law and that of many other states, directors have duties of care, loyalty and oversight that can under certain circumstances apply to HCM matters and can result in director liability.

3. While federal securities laws and rules contain several corporate disclosure requirements that apply to employees and touch on HCM issues, current laws and rules are not as robust or focused as many investors would like and have proposed. In response to rulemaking and other investor requests, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed amendments to its disclosure rules that would expressly require companies to describe their human capital resources to the extent that they are material to an understanding of a company’s business as a whole.

4. Some public companies have already articulated board responsibilities for oversight of HCM matters; some have renamed and expanded the responsibilities of their compensation committees to reflect their expanded focus; and some have disclosed their HCM polices and efforts in their securities law filings and other publications.

5. Separate and apart from the legal requirements that apply to corporate board duties and corporate disclosure requirements, there are important business, governance and reputational reasons for boards and companies to care about and address HCM matters. 6. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to board oversight of HCM matters, areas for possible board attention are (i) diversity and inclusion, (ii) employee satisfaction and engagement, (iii) succession and talent management, (iv) attrition and retention, and (v) ethics, workforce culture and risk.

À la prochaine…

Klaus Schwab (fondateur et le président exécutif du Forum économique mondial, dit Forum de Davos) vient de publier une belle tribune dans FigaroVox : « La crise économique liée au Covid-19: une épreuve de vérité pour les principes qui guident les dirigeants des grandes entreprises » (26 mars 2020).

Extrait :

Alors que l’urgence sanitaire mondiale Covid-19 se poursuit, les retombées économiques se multiplient. La croissance économique mondiale s’est inversée, les entreprises ont commencé à annuler les services qu’elles assurent à leurs clients et des millions de personnes sont au chômage technique ou licenciées. On peut se demander ce qu’est devenu le «capitalisme des parties prenantes» [capitalisme inclusif, NDLR], le modèle économique éclairé auquel de nombreuses entreprises ont adhéré il y a quelques mois à peine. Comment peut-on le rapprocher de ce que nous voyons aujourd’hui?

Avant de répondre à cette question, rappelons ce qu’est le «capitalisme des parties prenantes»: il s’agit d’assurer la préservation et la résilience à long terme de l’entreprise, et son ancrage dans la société. De ce point de vue, une crise économique à court terme, comme celle déclenchée par le Covid-19, permet de distinguer les entreprises qui incarnent véritablement le «modèle des parties prenantes» de celles qui ne lui ont accordé qu’un intérêt de pure forme, tout en conservant fondamentalement une orientation de profit à court terme.Une organisation orientée vers les parties prenantes s’efforcerait de maintenir ses compétences de base.

Cela s’applique à toutes les organisations. Le Forum Économique Mondial est lui aussi confronté à la question de savoir quoi faire des équipes qui sont temporairement «en chômage technique» en raison de l’annulation d’événements physiques. Une organisation orientée vers les actionnaires réduirait immédiatement ses effectifs, afin de maintenir la rentabilité à court terme. Mais une organisation orientée vers les parties prenantes s’efforcerait de maintenir ses compétences de base, de conserver ses talents et d’accepter les coûts à court terme pour préserver sa résilience à long terme.

Nous avons la chance de pouvoir choisir cette dernière voie. Pendant de nombreuses années en tant que fondateur et président exécutif du Forum Économique Mondial, ni moi ni les autres membres du conseil d’administration n’avons demandé ou reçu une augmentation de salaire ou une prime à court terme basée sur les performances, malgré une augmentation constante de la taille et des revenus de l’organisation. D’ailleurs, le Forum Économique Mondial a supprimé les bonus il y a deux ans. Les salariés doivent être motivés par l’objectif et non par l’argent.

Cette approche fait que notre organisation n’est pas obligée de recourir à des licenciements immédiats ou de diminuer son offre à ses membres. Au contraire, ces dernières semaines, nous avons mis en place une offre virtuelle, et nous avons réuni nos partenaires mondiaux pour des réunions et des échanges de bonnes pratiques au sujet du Covid-19. Nous avons aussi mis en place un groupe de travail pour soutenir la réponse sanitaire de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé et pour aider à assurer la continuité des activités tout en protégeant les vies et les moyens de subsistance des salariés.

Il en va de même ailleurs. La crise du Covid-19 révèle ceux qui ne pratiquent pas le «capitalisme des parties prenantes» tout en faisant mine de l’approuver. Bien sûr, presque toutes les entreprises mondiales sont profondément secouées par le Covid-19, et beaucoup ont dû recourir à des mesures très douloureuses, sans que ce soit de leur faute. Mais les différences entre les entreprises qui ont réellement orienté leur activité vers le modèle des parties prenantes et celles qui avaient un modèle d’actionnariat à court terme sont parfois frappantes.

Certaines entreprises ont utilisé leurs bénéfices croissants des années précédentes pour mener des programmes de rachat d’actions importants. Cela a stimulé leur rentabilité à court terme et augmenté artificiellement les bonus distribués aux cadres. Mais, confrontées au manque de réserves ou d’investissements stratégiques, nombre de ces entreprises sont aujourd’hui les premières à souffrir, incapables de redresser la situation sans intervention du gouvernement. En revanche, les entreprises qui ont utilisé leurs bénéfices pour investir dans la transformation numérique, le talent et la recherche et développement font souvent preuve d’une capacité de réaction qui fait défaut aux autres.De nombreuses entreprises qui ont adopté le modèle des parties prenantes ont déjà réagi en offrant leur aide pendant cette crise.

Ces dernières semaines, certaines entreprises ont continué à annoncer des bonus record pour leur PDG, calculés sur la rentabilité et le cours des actions de l’année fiscale 2019. Leurs clients et leurs salariés, dont beaucoup souffrent, n’oublieront pas des décisions aussi éloignées de la réalité qu’ils vivent. En revanche, le Directeur général de Marriot, Arne Sorenson, dont l’entreprise et les salariés ont été sévèrement touchés, a annoncé que le président et lui ne toucheraient aucun salaire en 2020 et réduiraient de moitié la rémunération de l’équipe dirigeante. Ainsi a-t-il illustré la capacité de son entreprise à faire corps avec ses salariés et les sociétés où elle opère.

Enfin, de nombreuses entreprises qui ont adopté le modèle des parties prenantes ont déjà réagi en offrant leur aide pendant cette crise. Unilever, qui est un champion du modèle des parties prenantes depuis le mandat de Paul Polman, a annoncé le 23 mars un don immédiat de 50 millions de dollars en savon à la plateforme d’action Covid qui a été mise en place en réponse à l’urgence sanitaire mondiale. Le géant du transport maritime Maersk offre ses navires et son espace de chargement pour acheminer des fournitures d’urgence partout où elles sont nécessaires dans le monde.

Ces entreprises comprennent qu’une urgence sanitaire mondiale comme celle du Covid-19 exige que tous les acteurs de la société se réorientent temporairement vers l’urgence, et elles ont l’agilité et la préparation nécessaires pour le faire. Ce n’est pas une coïncidence. Ce sont les mêmes entreprises qui ont optimisé la prospérité à long terme et cultivé le capitalisme des actionnaires. Pendant cette période, et lorsque tout cela sera terminé, nous devons soutenir ces entreprises. Elles mettent en œuvre le modèle économique qui nous permettra de survivre aujourd’hui et de prospérer à nouveau demain.

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…

En ce début d’avril 2020, le Forum Économique Mondial vient de publier une déclaration sur les principes parties prenantes qu’il entend promouvoir durant la crise du COVID-19 : « Stakeholder Principles in the COVID Era ».

Extrait :

To this end, we endorse the following Stakeholder Principles in the COVID Era:

− To employees, our principle is to keep you safe: We will continue do everything we can to protect your workplace, and to help you to adapt to the new working conditions

− To our ecosystem of suppliers and customers, our principle is to secure our shared business continuity: We will continue to work to keep supply chains open and integrate you into our business response

− To our end consumers, our principle is to maintain fair prices and commercial terms for essential supplies

− To governments and society, our principle is to offer our full support: We stand ready and will continue to complement public action with our resources, capabilities and know-how

− To our shareholders, our principle remains the long-term viability of the company and its potential to create sustained value

Finally, we also maintain the principle that we must continue our sustainability efforts unabated, to bring our world closer to achieving shared goals, including the Paris climate agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda. We will continue to focus on those long-term goals.

À la prochaine…