objectifs de l’entreprise | Page 3

Article amenant à réfléchir dans le Wall Street Journal de Alexander William Salter : « Profit Keeps Corporate Leaders Honest » (8 décembre 2020).

Extrait :

(…) As National Review’s Andrew Stuttaford notes, this vision of wide-ranging corporate beneficence introduces a host of principal-agent problems in ordinary business decision-making. Profit is a concrete and clarifying metric that allows shareholders—owners—to hold executives accountable for their performance. Adding multiple goals not related to profit introduces needless confusion.

This is no accident. Stakeholder capitalism is used as a way to obfuscate what counts as success in business. By focusing less on profits and more on vague social values, “enlightened” executives will find it easier to avoid accountability even as they squander business resources. While trying to make business about “social justice” is always concerning, the contemporary conjunction of stakeholder theory and woke capitalism makes for an especially dangerous and accountability-thwarting combination.

Better to avoid it. Since profits result from increasing revenue and cutting costs, businesses that put profits first have to work hard to give customers more while using less. In short, profits are an elegant and parsimonious way of promoting efficiency within a business as well as society at large.

Stakeholder capitalism ruptures this process. When other goals compete with the mandate to maximize returns, the feedback loop created by profits gets weaker. Lower revenues and higher costs no longer give owners and corporate officers the information they need to make hard choices. The result is increased internal conflict: Owners will jockey among themselves for the power to determine the corporation’s priorities. Corporate officers will be harder to discipline, because poor performance can always be justified by pointing to broader social goals. And the more these broader goals take precedence, the more businesses will use up scarce resources to deliver diminishing benefits to customers.

Given these problems, why would prominent corporations sign on to the Great Reset? Some people within the organizations may simply prefer that firms take politically correct stances and don’t consider the cost. Others may think it looks good in a press release and will never go anywhere. A third group may aspire to jobs in government and see championing corporate social responsibility as a bridge.

Finally, there are those who think they can benefit personally from the reduced corporate efficiency. As businesses redirect cash flow from profit-directed uses to social priorities, lucrative positions of management, consulting, oversight and more will have to be created. They’ll fill them. This is rent-seeking, enabled by the growing confluence of business and government, and enhanced by contemporary social pieties.

The World Economic Forum loves to discuss the need for “global governance,” but the Davos crowd knows this type of social engineering can’t be achieved by governments alone. Multinational corporations are increasingly independent authorities. Their cooperation is essential.

Endorsements of stakeholder capitalism should be viewed against this backdrop. If it is widely adopted, the predictable result will be atrophied corporate responsibility as business leaders behave increasingly like global bureaucrats. Stakeholder capitalism is today a means of acquiring corporate buy-in to the Davos political agenda.

Friedman knew well the kind of corporate officer who protests too much against profit-seeking: “Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.” He was right then, and he is right now. We should reject stakeholder capitalism as a misconception of the vocation of business. If we don’t defend shareholder capitalism vigorously, we’ll see firsthand that there are many more insidious things businesses can pursue than profit.

À la prochaine…

Belle analyse de M. Stéphane Lauer sur LinkedIn : « Danone, entreprise à mission… impossible » (30 novembre 2020).

Extrait :

Le capitalisme bien ordonné

Mais le 23 novembre, face au recul de son cours de Bourse et à la chute des ventes d’eau en bouteille à cause de la crise liée à la pandémie, Danone a été obligé de rentrer dans le rang du capitalisme bien ordonné. L’amélioration de la compétitivité redevient la priorité au détriment des emplois, dont un quart doit disparaître dans les sièges sociaux pour économiser plusieurs centaines de millions d’euros.

Danone est-il au bord du dépôt de bilan ? Pas vraiment. Le groupe a versé 1,4 milliard d’euros de dividendes au titre des résultats de 2019, tandis qu’au premier semestre, les bénéfices se sont élevés à plus de 1 milliard d’euros, permettant de dégager une marge de 14 % du chiffre d’affaires. « La protection de la rentabilité d’une entreprise est fondamentale », explique le PDG. Certes, mais jusqu’où ?

La question fondamentale est celle du juste partage de la valeur. Est-il raisonnable que les rendements des entreprises restent aussi élevés que dans les années 1980 alors qu’entre-temps les taux d’intérêt à long terme sur les dettes publiques sont tombés à zéro et que la croissance a été divisée par deux ? Une rentabilité des fonds propres aux alentours de 15 % a-t-elle un sens dans un groupe agroalimentaire qui n’est ni une star de la high-tech ni un géant du luxe ? Des taux de marges d’un tel niveau sont-ils compatibles avec la préoccupation de rémunérer équitablement les producteurs de lait, de continuer à être présent sur certains marchés, de consacrer une part équitable des profits à sa masse salariale ?

Emmanuel Faber répond qu’à partir du moment où ses concurrents proposent des rendements supérieurs, son entreprise ne peut pas se laisser distancer. « Il est pris à son propre piège, estime Patrick d’Humières, consultant en stratégie durable et enseignant à l’Ecole centrale de Paris. S’il ne parvient pas à nouer un pacte avec des actionnaires qui comprennent que la course avec Nestlé ou Coca-Cola ne doit pas être le seul horizon de l’entreprise, le double discours sera compliqué à tenir sur le long terme. »

Au détriment des salaires

Il ne s’agit pas de clouer au pilori Emmanuel Faber. Il a su prendre des initiatives courageuses et ambitieuses sur le plan sociétal en droite ligne avec l’héritage laissé par le fondateur de Danone, Antoine Riboud. En réalité, le dilemme auquel l’entreprise fait face aujourd’hui pose la question du niveau de la rémunération du capital, qui devient de moins en moins soutenable sur le plan social et écologique.

Ces rendements mirifiques qui sont devenus la norme à partir des années 1980 ont fini par aboutir à une déformation spectaculaire du partage de la valeur au détriment des salaires. Logiquement, les rémunérations auraient dû progresser au même rythme que la productivité du travail. Or, depuis 1990, celle-ci a fait un bond de 50 % dans les pays de l’OCDE, alors que les salaires n’augmentaient que de 23 %.

Bien sûr le phénomène a été caricatural aux Etats-Unis, moins sensible en France. Mais le mécanisme reste le même. Pour que les entreprises puissent continuer à servir à leurs actionnaires les rendements exigés, il a fallu comprimer la part accordée aux salariés grâce à la flexibilisation du marché du travail, à la libéralisation à outrance des échanges, à la délocalisation de la production dans des pays à faibles coûts. La contrepartie s’est traduite dans les pays développés par une baisse du pouvoir d’achat, la disparition des emplois intermédiaires. Partout on assiste à la montée des inégalités.

Même constat sur le plan environnemental. Le maintien dans la durée de retours sur investissement artificiellement élevés conduit les entreprises à générer des externalités qui sont incompatibles avec ce que la planète est capable de supporter. « Les entreprises peuvent se déclarer “à mission”, chercher à améliorer leurs performances environnementales et sociales, mais rien de majeur ne changera si le rendement exigé du capital reste aussi élevé », tranchait récemment dans ces colonnes Patrick Artus, chef économiste de la banque Natixis. Patrick d’Humières est encore plus précis : « Il n’y aura pas d’économie durable dans les entreprises cotées si celles-ci ne parviennent pas à convaincre leurs actionnaires qu’ils doivent réduire leur rémunération de quatre ou cinq points. »

De plus en plus de fonds de pension et de fonds souverains arbitrent leurs investissements en fonction de critères sociaux et environnementaux. C’est un progrès décisif, mais si cette évolution ne s’accompagne pas d’une modération des rendements exigés, Danone et d’autres risquent de se transformer en entreprise à mission… impossible.

À la prochaine…

Billet à lire de Frederick Alexander et al. : « From Shareholder Primacy to Stakeholder Capitalism » (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 26 octobre 2020).

Extrait :

This policy agenda includes the following categories of interventions required for a broad transition to Stakeholder Capitalism.

We have drafted proposed Federal legislative language, “The Stakeholder Capitalism Act,” attached in Exhibit A of the full paper linked to below, which incorporates each of the following ideas:

Responsible Institutions: We propose that the trustees of institutional investors be required to consider certain economic, social, and environmental effects of their decisions on the interests of their beneficiaries with respect to stewardship of companies within their portfolios. This clarified understanding of fiduciary duty will ensure that institutional investors use their authority to further the real interests of those beneficiaries who have stakes in all aspects of the economy, environment, and society. These changes can be achieved through an amendment to the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) by inserting language after paragraph (54) of Section 2 and after subsection (c) of Section 36.

Responsible Companies: Just as trustees of invested funds must expand their notion of the interests of their beneficiaries, the companies in which they invest must also expand the understanding of the interests of the economic owners of their shares, who are more often than not those same beneficiaries. We propose a federal requirement that any corporation or other business entity involved in interstate commerce be formed under a state statute that requires directors and officers to account for the impact of corporate actions not only on financial returns, but also on the viability of the social, natural, and political systems that affect all stakeholders. This change can be achieved through the addition of a new Chapter 2F of Title 15 of the U.S. Code.

Tools for Institutional Accountability: In order to allow beneficiaries to hold institutional investors accountable for the impact of their stewardship on all the interests of beneficiaries, we propose laws that mandate disclosure as to how they are meeting their responsibility to consider these broad interests, including disclosure of proxy voting and engagement with companies. We propose that the Securities and Exchange Commission should promulgate rules requiring each investment company and each employee benefit plan required to file an annual report under section 103 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Tools for Company Accountability: Corporate and securities laws that govern businesses must also be changed in order to give institutional investors the tools to meet their enhanced responsibilities. This will include requiring large companies to meet new standards for disclosure regarding stakeholder impact as an important element of their accountability. This proposal can be achieved through an amendment added to The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) after section 13A.

(…)

This tension cannot be wished away. The White Paper proposes a solution: rules that facilitate and encourage investor-sanctioned guardrails. Such guardrails would allow shareholders to insist that all companies that they own forgo profits earned through the exploitation of people and planet. Unlike executives, the institutional shareholders who control the markets are diversified, so that their success rises and falls with the success of the economy, rather than any single company. This means that these institutions suffer when individual companies pursue profits with practices that harm the economy. We believe that by leveling the competitive playing field, these changes will pave the way for the type of corporate behavior imagined by the New Paradigm, the Davos Manifesto and the Business Roundtable Statement.

Indeed, far from being “state corporatism,” as the memo claims, what we propose is “human capitalism,” where the workers, citizens, and other humans whose savings fund corporations are given a say in the kind of world they live in. Will it be one in which all compete in a manner that rejects unjust profits? Or, in contrast, will it be one in which corporations continue to lobby against regulation that protects workers while the corporate executives make 300 times the median salary of workers?

À la prochaine…

Belle tribune dans Fortune de MM. Colin Mayer, Leo Strine Jr et Jaap Winter au titre clair : « 50 years later, Milton Friedman’s shareholder doctrine is dead » (13 septembre 2020).

Extrait :

Fifty years ago, Milton Friedman in the New York Times magazine proclaimed that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Directors have the duty to do what is in the interests of their masters, the shareholders, to make as much profit as possible. Friedman was hostile to the New Deal and European models of social democracy and urged business to use its muscle to reduce the effectiveness of unions, blunt environmental and consumer protection measures, and defang antitrust law. He sought to reduce consideration of human concerns within the corporate boardroom and legal requirements on business to treat workers, consumers, and society fairly. 

Over the last 50 years, Friedman’s views became increasingly influential in the U.S. As a result, the power of the stock market and wealthy elites soared and consideration of the interests of workers, the environment, and consumers declined. Profound economic insecurity and inequality, a slow response to climate change, and undermined public institutions resulted. Using their wealth and power in the pursuit of profits, corporations led the way in loosening the external constraints that protected workers and other stakeholders against overreaching.

Under the dominant Friedman paradigm, corporations were constantly harried by all the mechanisms that shareholders had available—shareholder resolutions, takeovers, and hedge fund activism—to keep them narrowly focused on stockholder returns. And pushed by institutional investors, executive remuneration systems were increasingly focused on total stock returns. By making corporations the playthings of the stock market, it became steadily harder for corporations to operate in an enlightened way that reflected the real interests of their human investors in sustainable growth, fair treatment of workers, and protection of the environment.

Half a century later, it is clear that this narrow, stockholder-centered view of corporations has cost society severely. Well before the COVID-19 pandemic, the single-minded focus of business on profits was criticized for causing the degradation of nature and biodiversity, contributing to global warming, stagnating wages, and exacerbating economic inequality. The result is best exemplified by the drastic shift in gain sharing away from workers toward corporate elites, with stockholders and top management eating more of the economic pie.

Corporate America understood the threat that this way of thinking was having on the social compact and reacted through the 2019 corporate purpose statement of the Business Roundtable, emphasizing responsibility to stakeholders as well as shareholders. But the failure of many of the signatories to protect their stakeholders during the coronavirus pandemic has prompted cynicism about the original intentions of those signing the document, as well as their subsequent actions.

Stockholder advocates are right when then they claim that purpose statements on their own achieve little: Calling for corporate executives who answer to only one powerful constituency—stockholders in the form of highly assertive institutional investors—and have no legal duty to other stakeholders to run their corporations in a way that is fair to all stakeholders is not only ineffectual, it is naive and intellectually incoherent.

What is required is to match commitment to broader responsibility of corporations to society with a power structure that backs it up. That is what has been missing. Corporate law in the U.S. leaves it to directors and managers subject to potent stockholder power to give weight to other stakeholders. In principle, corporations can commit to purposes beyond profit and their stakeholders, but only if their powerful investors allow them to do so. Ultimately, because the law is permissive, it is in fact highly restrictive of corporations acting fairly for all their stakeholders because it hands authority to investors and financial markets for corporate control.

Absent any effective mechanism for encouraging adherence to the Roundtable statement, the system is stacked against those who attempt to do so. There is no requirement on corporations to look after their stakeholders and for the most part they do not, because if they did, they would incur the wrath of their shareholders. That was illustrated all too clearly by the immediate knee-jerk response of the Council of Institutional Investors to the Roundtable declaration last year, which expressed its disapproval by stating that the Roundtable had failed to recognize shareholders as owners as well as providers of capital, and that “accountability to everyone means accountability to no one.” 

If the Roundtable is serious about shifting from shareholder primacy to purposeful business, two things need to happen. One is that the promise of the New Deal needs to be renewed, and protections for workers, the environment, and consumers in the U.S. need to be brought closer to the standards set in places like Germany and Scandinavia. 

But to do that first thing, a second thing is necessary. Changes within company law itself must occur, so that corporations are better positioned to support the restoration of that framework and govern themselves internally in a manner that respects their workers and society. Changing the power structure within corporate law itself—to require companies to give fair consideration to stakeholders and temper their need to put profit above all other values—will also limit the ability and incentives for companies to weaken regulations that protect workers, consumers, and society more generally.

To make this change, corporate purpose has to be enshrined in the heart of corporate law as an expression of the broader responsibility of corporations to society and the duty of directors to ensure this. Laws already on the books of many states in the U.S. do exactly that by authorizing the public benefit corporation (PBC). A PBC has an obligation to state a public purpose beyond profit, to fulfill that purpose as part of the responsibilities of its directors, and to be accountable for so doing. This model is meaningfully distinct from the constituency statutes in some states that seek to strengthen stakeholder interests, but that stakeholder advocates condemn as ineffectual. PBCs have an affirmative duty to be good corporate citizens and to treat all stakeholders with respect. Such requirements are mandatory and meaningful, while constituency statutes are mushy.

The PBC model is growing in importance and is embraced by many younger entrepreneurs committed to the idea that making money in a way that is fair to everyone is the responsible path forward. But the model’s ultimate success depends on longstanding corporations moving to adopt it. 

Even in the wake of the Roundtable’s high-minded statement, that has not yet happened, and for good reason. Although corporations can opt in to become a PBC, there is no obligation on them to do so and they need the support of their shareholders. It is relatively easy for founder-owned companies or companies with a relatively low number of stockholders to adopt PBC forms if their owners are so inclined. It is much tougher to obtain the approval of a dispersed group of institutional investors who are accountable to an even more dispersed group of individual investors. There is a serious coordination problem of achieving reform in existing corporations.

That is why the law needs to change. Instead of being an opt-in alternative to shareholder primacy, the PBC should be the universal standard for societally important corporations, which should be defined as ones with over $1 billion of revenues, as suggested by Sen. Elizabeth Warren. In the U.S., this would be done most effectively by corporations becoming PBCs under state law. The magic of the U.S. system has rested in large part on cooperation between the federal government and states, which provides society with the best blend of national standards and nimble implementation. This approach would build on that.

Corporate shareholders and directors enjoy substantial advantages and protections through U.S. law that are not extended to those who run their own businesses. In return for offering these privileges, society can reasonably expect to benefit, not suffer, from what corporations do. Making responsibility in society a duty in corporate law will reestablish the legitimacy of incorporation.

There are three pillars to this. The first is that corporations must be responsible corporate citizens, treating their workers and other stakeholders fairly, and avoiding externalities, such as carbon emissions, that cause unreasonable or disproportionate harm to others. The second is that corporations should seek to make profit by benefiting others. The third is that they should be able to demonstrate that they fulfill both criteria by measuring and reporting their performances against them.

The PBC model embraces all three elements and puts legal, and thus market, force behind them. Corporate managers, like most of us, take obligatory duties seriously. If they don’t, the PBC model allows for courts to issue orders, such as injunctions, holding corporations to their stakeholder and societal obligations. In addition, the PBC model requires fairness to all stakeholders at all stages of a corporation’s life, even when it is sold. The PBC model shifts power to socially responsible investment and index funds that focus on the long term and cannot gain from unsustainable approaches to growth that harm society. 

Our proposal to amend corporate law to ensure responsible corporate citizenship will prompt a predictable outcry from vested interests and traditional academic quarters, claiming that it will be unworkable, devastating for entrepreneurship and innovation, undermine a capitalist system that has been an engine for growth and prosperity, and threaten jobs, pensions, and investment around the world. If putting the purpose of a business at the heart of corporate law does all of that, one might well wonder why we invented the corporation in the first place. 

Of course, it will do exactly the opposite. Putting purpose into law will simplify, not complicate, the running of businesses by aligning what the law wants them to do with the reason why they are created. It will be a source of entrepreneurship, innovation, and inspiration to find solutions to problems that individuals, societies, and the natural world face. It will make markets and the capitalist system function better by rewarding positive contributions to well-being and prosperity, not wealth transfers at the expense of others. It will create meaningful, fulfilling jobs, support employees in employment and retirement, and encourage investment in activities that generate wealth for all. 

We are calling for the universal adoption of the PBC for large corporations. We do so to save our capitalist system and corporations from the devastating consequences of their current approaches, and for the sake of our children, our societies, and the natural world. 

À la prochaine…

Me Errol Cohen publie un intéressant article dans Les Échos.fr sur l’entreprise à mission : « La société à mission : un fonctionnement spécifique, Fiscalité et droit des entreprises » (13 août 2020).

Extrait :

La société à mission : un fonctionnement spécifique, Fiscalité et droit des entreprises

Le statut de société à mission s’appuie sur les travaux académiques relatifs à la société à objet social étendu. Mais il les adapte aux nouvelles dispositions relatives à la « raison d’être » . Ce dernier étage de la fusée regroupe essentiellement les principes suivants : une définition de la mission, étendant l’objet social, marquant l’engagement de l’entreprise et assurant l’opposabilité de la mission ; une mission qui intègre des objectifs d’ordre social et environnemental, propres à l’entreprise, et non réductibles au profit ; une mission qui constitue un outil d’ancrage de l’entreprise dans son environnement, ses écosystèmes et plus largement dans le cours de l’histoire, et qui vient donc donner un déploiement plus approfondi et plus opérationnel à la « raison d’être » ; un principe de contrôle interne de cet engagement par un comité de mission dont la composition reflète les différentes parties inscrites dans la mission, et notamment un salarié. Les parties prenantes de l’entreprise (sans que cette liste soit exhaustive, clients, fournisseurs, salariés, famille de ceux-ci, le territoire où ils se trouvent, etc.) ne sont pas explicitement mentionnées dans le texte de la « société à mission » mais elles sont clairement évoquées dans les débats parlementaires.

La notion de mission englobe aussi indirectement les principes suivants : la prise en compte du temps long, de l’innovation et de la recherche ; le développement pérenne, comme fondement de l’entreprise et de son engagement collectif ; la restauration de la liberté d’arbitrage du dirigeant et des instances de direction ; l’arbitrage éclairé dans le cadre de la mission.

La raison d’être, tout comme la mission, se distingue de la vocation habituelle de la société ou d’une activité qui se justifierait avant tout par son but lucratif. Elles doivent marquer des « avancées » et des engagements par rapport à l’objet social habituel, et donc impliquer des engagements nouveaux et des transformations à venir promises à certaines parties. Raison d’être et mission sont clairement des vecteurs de mouvement et de progrès collectif. Certes, des particularismes dans l’activité ou dans le déploiement d’une société peuvent rendre plus aisé le passage en société à mission, mais ils ne peuvent pour autant lui servir de substitut.

Indépendance du dirigeant face aux actionnaires

L’établissement d’une mission invite les dirigeants, dans leurs relations avec les actionnaires et les parties prenantes, à une prise de conscience plus large de leur action, des énergies à libérer et des partenaires à prendre en compte. La mission sera une vigoureuse incitation à projeter les valeurs sociales, environnementales et d’innovation dans un monde plus responsable et riche de sens. Ce plaidoyer peut paraître « idéaliste », mais il ne l’est en rien.

Il est facile de constater que les entreprises sont devenues des acteurs fondamentaux de nos sociétés, tant par la croissance économique et sociale qu’elles peuvent amener que par les impacts négatifs (pollutions, inégalités…) qu’elles peuvent induire.

Rappelons que ce qui s’est révélé être un parti pris idéaliste, c’était l’idée que les entreprises par la seule prise en compte de leur « intérêt bien compris » adopteraient spontanément des démarches engagées en faveur d’une responsabilité sociale et environnementale accrue. Or – et c’est là que se cachait l’idéalisme – c’était supposer que les dirigeants ont toujours les moyens de résister face aux exigences et aux pressions en termes de valeur actionnariale ; la recherche a bien montré que cette résistance, si elle existe, ne dure pas longtemps. Car l’univers des actionnaires est lui-même un univers en mouvement rapide.

Et si certains actionnaires peuvent être attentifs à l’intérêt à long terme de l’entreprise, encore faut-il que cette stratégie ne joue pas trop sur le cours des actions, car une baisse attirerait immédiatement des fonds activistes avides d’opérations aux effets rapides et qui rapportent gros. Paradoxalement, dans un monde dominé par la valeur actionnariale et les codes de gouvernance standards, un comportement vertueux vulnérabilise l’entreprise et peut la soumettre à des risques difficilement soutenables. Ce qui revient simplement à dire que l’idéalisme réside surtout dans l’idée que les dirigeants peuvent installer un comportement responsable envers et contre tous les mécanismes juridiques et normatifs actuels.

La société à mission permet de sortir du paradoxe de la vertu contre-productive et vulnérabilisante. Elle offre un schéma de gouvernance alternatif et cohérent qui soutient le dirigeant en réorganisant ses relations avec les actionnaires et les parties prenantes.L’auteur

À la prochaine…

Nouvel article sur la raison d’être par Martin Lipton et al. : « On the Purpose and Objective of the Corporation » (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 5 août 2020).

Extrait :

Recent events—notably including the pandemic, its disparate impact on various segments of society, and the focus on inequality and injustice arising in the wake of the death of George Floyd—have accelerated the conversation on corporate purpose. The result has been substantial, salutary reflection about the role that corporations play in creating and distributing economic prosperity and the nexus between value and values.

For our part, we have supported stakeholder governance for over 40 years—first, to empower boards of directors to reject opportunistic takeover bids by corporate raiders, and later to combat short-termism and ensure that directors maintain the flexibility to invest for long-term growth and innovation. We continue to advise corporations and their boards that—consistent with Delaware law—they may exercise their business judgment to manage for the benefit of the corporation and all of its stakeholders over the long term.

In looking beyond the disruption caused by the pandemic, boards and corporate leaders have an opportunity to rebuild with the clarity and conviction that come from articulating a corporate purpose, anchored in a holistic understanding of the key drivers of their business, the ways in which those drivers shape and are shaped by values, and the interdependencies of multiple stakeholders that are essential to the long-term success of the business.

This opportunity leads us to reiterate and refine a simple formulation of corporate purpose and objective, as follows:

The purpose of a corporation is to conduct a lawful, ethical, profitable and sustainable business in order to ensure its success and grow its value over the long term. This requires consideration of all the stakeholders that are critical to its success (shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers and communities), as determined by the corporation and its board of directors using their business judgment and with regular engagement with shareholders, who are essential partners in supporting the corporation’s pursuit of its purpose. Fulfilling purpose in such manner is fully consistent with the fiduciary duties of the board of directors and the stewardship obligations of shareholders.

This statement of corporate purpose is broad enough to apply to every business entity, but at the same time supplies clear guideposts for action and engagement. The basic objective of sustainable profitability recognizes that the purpose of for-profit corporations includes creation of value for investors. The requirement of lawful and ethical conduct ensures generally recognized standards of corporate social compliance. Going further, the broader mandate to take into account all corporate stakeholders, including communities, is not limited to local communities, but comprises society and the economy at large and directs boards to exercise their business judgment within the scope of this broader responsibility. The requirement of regular shareholder engagement acknowledges accountability to investors, but also the shared responsibility of shareholders for responsible long-term corporate stewardship.

Fulfilling this purpose will require different approaches for each corporation depending on its industry, history, regulatory environment, governance and other factors. We expect that board committees—focusing on stakeholders, ESG issues and the stewardship obligations of shareholders— will be useful or even necessary for some companies. But for all the differences among companies, there is an important unifying commonality: corporate action, taken against the backdrop of this formulation of corporate purpose, will be fully protected by the business judgment rule, so long as decisions are made by non-conflicted directors acting upon careful consideration and deliberation.

Executed in this way, stakeholder governance will be a better driver of long-term value creation and broad-based prosperity than the shareholder primacy model. Directors and managers have the responsibility of exercising their business judgment in acting for the corporate entity that they represent, balancing its rights and obligations and taking into account both risks and opportunities over the long term, in regular consultation with shareholders. Directors will not be forced to narrow their focus and act as if any one interest trumps all others, with potentially destructive consequences, but will instead have latitude to make decisions that reasonably balance the interests of all constituencies in a manner that will promote the sustainable, long-term business success of the corporation as a whole.

À la prochaine…