devoirs des administrateurs | Page 3

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…

Merci au cabinet Stikeman Elliott pour ce billet daté du 24 avril 2020 intitulé « COVID et gouvernance d’entreprise : une mission plus large pour les conseils d’administration ». Un précieux éclairage sur ce qui va changer pour les CA avec la COVID-19…

Extrait :

Cette discussion aborde les principaux défis auxquels sont confrontés les chefs d’entreprise canadiens à l’approche de la phase de réouverture :

se concentrer sur les véritables enjeux; 

veiller à la gestion immédiate des crises et à la préparation du conseil d’administration; 

repenser la stratégie et la gestion des risques;

repenser les cadres incitatifs; et

repenser l’objectif de l’entreprise.

Comme en conclut l’article, cette crise redéfinira une grande partie de ce que nous considérons comme étant de la « bonne gouvernance ». Les conseils d’administration, en particulier, doivent élargir leurs missions pour s’assurer que leurs entreprises sont préparées à la nouvelle réalité qui les attend.

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 de Les Échos qui continue la réflexion sur la loi PACTE et le droit des sociétés : « Raison d’être, entreprise à mission, intérêt élargi… quels engagements et risques ? » (24 septembre 2019).

Extrait :

Une possible suppression du statut

Le statut de société à mission, également prévu par la loi Pacte , est plus engageant. Pour Bruno Dondero, avocat associé au sein du cabinet CMS Francis Lefebvre Avocats, la démarche est loin d’être anodine : «  Si un dirigeant se contente d’inscrire sa démarche dans les statuts, et qu’il ne fait rien pour prendre en compte les enjeux sociaux ou environnementaux dans ses choix, ou que son comportement est contraire à ses engagements, le ministère public ou toute personne intéressée, comme un fournisseur, un client ou une organisation associative, pourra demander la suppression de la mention », prévient l’avocat. Les risques qui pèsent sur le dirigeant sont-ils aussi importants pour la raison d’être ? Pas si sûr. «  Les conséquences juridiques de cette nouvelle notion sont assez incertaines. Cela dépend en partie de la façon dont la raison d’être est rédigée dans les statuts, tout en sachant que les associés pourront la modifier ou la supprimer. Plus elle est précise, plus elle sera contraignante  », estime Nicolas Borga. Mais une raison d’être définie de façon excessivement large pourrait également avoir des effets pervers tant son champ d’application serait vaste et tant elle donnerait prise à interprétation. 

Des labels pour sortir du lot

Une entreprise, dont la raison d’être serait de promouvoir le travail en France, qui déciderait de fermer une usine et de la délocaliser dans un pays où les coûts de production sont moins élevés, pourrait être chahutée. «  Une association pourrait se plaindre des effets d’une telle décision. Mais pourra-t-on reprocher à cette société d’avoir méconnu sa raison d’être lorsqu’elle sera en mesure d’établir qu’il en allait de sa survie et que son intérêt social commandait la prise d’une telle décision ? C’est improbable, poursuit Nicolas Borga. La raison d’être pourrait donc plus s’apparenter à un outil marketing. » Pour éviter qu’elle ne se limite à un effet de mode, sans lien avec la stratégie, les entreprises peuvent se tourner vers des labels. Des agréments comme Esus (entreprise solidaire d’utilité sociale), le label Lucie, ou B Corp, dont l’objectif est d’identifier et de faire progresser les entreprises qui intègrent à leurs activités des objectifs sociaux et environnementaux, vont réellement prendre de l’ampleur et devenir le moyen le plus évident de repérer les entreprises qui s’engagent.

Dans « Shareholder primacy — going beyond the shareholder », Catherine Maxwell propose un billet intéressant que je relaie ici. Ce billet amène une réflexion sur la primauté de la norme actionnariale dans une perspective australienne.

Extraits :

The debate between those who advocate that the purpose of the company is to only to make profits for shareholders (shareholder primacy), and those who consider that a company should take into account a broader range of interests has a venerable history. We have seen advocates for both sides of the debate active in the last few weeks. We have also seen discussions about whether Australian law should change to include provisions which specifically permit directors to consider non-shareholder interests as has been done in parts of the US and the UK.

Shareholder Primacy in changing times Jason Harris has recently revisited the issue in his paper Shareholder Primacy, in Changing Times. Writing in the context of recent events, he has produced a comprehensive summary of both the history of the debate and the chain of legal authorities. He concludes ‘When board members make decisions they include a variety of considerations. They do so not simply because the law directs them to, but because of the commercial benefit in doing so. Shareholder primacy is not seriously under threat by these changing times, because it has only been one part of the story’. I tend to agree with him.

À la prochaine…