Normes d’encadrement | Page 3

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…

Belle tribune offerte par Les Échos.fr par M. Arnaud Marion : « Distribuer des dividendes en 2020 est contraire à l’intérêt social des entreprises, des Etats et des salariés » (25 mars 2020).

Extrait :

Le monde économique a toujours été animé par les paradoxes. Le début d’année 2020 restera marqué par la prise de conscience dans le monde occidental d’une crise planétaire au moment où les sociétés cotées terminaient leurs publications annuelles en affichant des records de croissance et de résultats, avant d’aller faire approuver quelques semaines après leurs comptes annuels, leurs rémunérations (en vertu du « say on pay ») et leurs dividendes devant leurs assemblées générales d’actionnaires. Les entreprises vont devoir résister à un mouvement tectonique économique mondial, inimaginable dans ses conséquences de court et moyen terme, à tel point que les entreprises ont annulé leurs rendez-vous investisseurs, et ne savent plus se prononcer sur leur « guidance » et leurs prévisions de résultats.

Plusieurs questions se posent pour les grandes entreprises et les entreprises cotées, qui vont faire face à une chute d’activité, mettre des salariés en chômage partiel, et peut-être par la suite à en licencier avant de retrouver sur le moyen terme un niveau d’activité normatif.closevolume_off

Comment la continuité d’exploitation va-t-elle être appréciée par les dirigeants et leurs commissaires aux comptes dans un contexte où aucune prévision ne peut être sérieusement faite sans une visibilité sur la fin de la pandémie, avec de surcroît une valeur des cash-flows qui s’est effondrée, et une prime de risque qui a bondi du fait d’une forte volatilité ?

Comment la démocratie actionnariale va-t-elle pouvoir s’exercer, sans occulter légalement les débats annuels nécessaires qui rendent responsables les mandataires sociaux de leurs actes de gestion devant leurs actionnaires une fois par an ? Ce virus ne peut pas être un prétexte pour museler la légitimité et le rôle des actionnaires, ni donner une immunité aux mandataires sociaux révocables ad nutum.

Comment les entreprises, qui sont dans l’incapacité de faire des prévisions, vont-elles pouvoir maintenir raisonnablement à leur ordre du jour la distribution de dividendes fondés sur des résultats passés ?

Point crucial. Ce dernier point est sans aucun doute le point le plus crucial alors que certaines grandes entreprises ont décidé de ne pas verser de dividendes. Il a une double résonance au nom de l’intérêt social. Comment effectivement des dirigeants et actionnaires peuvent-ils soutenir qu’il est dans « l’intérêt social de l’entreprise » de distribuer des dividendes et donc de la trésorerie alors qu’on ne sait pas de quoi est fait le lendemain avec une activité qui est aujourd’hui à l’arrêt à hauteur de 75 % sur le territoire ?

Comment pourrait-on concilier cette équation contre nature de rémunérer les actionnaires alors que dans les mêmes temps on ferait rémunérer une partie de ses salariés par le chômage partiel, voire financer son activité par la puissance publique redevenue État providence ? Ce serait revenir à une économie de la rente.

Comment enfin, l’intérêt social des salariés, salariés des fournisseurs et sous-traitants, serait garanti avec une rémunération pour les actionnaires aujourd’hui, sans savoir si demain elles pourront rémunérer tous leurs salariés, sous-traitants et fournisseurs ? La responsabilité sociale et environnementale doit être au cœur de ce débat, compte tenu du choc d’offre auquel les entreprises sont actuellement confrontées et du choc de demande qui s’ensuivra sans aucun doute.

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…