Responsabilité sociale des entreprises | Page 31

The Conversation publie un article sur la COVID-19 sur la réponse des multinationales à la crise : Sabine Urban et Ulrike Mayrhofer, « La grande disparité des réponses des multinationales du CAC 40 à la crise« , 4 mai 2020.

Extrait :

L’analyse des données collectées met en relief la diversité des réponses qui sont apportées par les multinationales du CAC 40. Nous avons identifié quatre groupes de multinationales :

• Les multinationales « citoyennes » faisant preuve de générosité (15 entreprises) ;
• Les multinationales tournées vers la continuité de l’activité (10 entreprises) ;
• Les multinationales orientées vers l’innovation (5 entreprises)
• Les multinationales n’ayant pas annoncé de mesures spécifiques face au Covid-19 (10 entreprises).

Plusieurs enseignements peuvent être tirés des réactions observées. Notre travail révèle que la plupart des multinationales s’adaptent à la nouvelle situation et font preuve de flexibilité et de responsabilité.

De manière surprenante, certaines multinationales n’ont pas annoncé de mesures spécifiques par rapport à la pandémie et il serait pertinent de s’interroger sur les raisons de ce choix.

Il ressort de notre analyse que la crise sanitaire mondiale provoquée par le Covid-19 entraîne de nombreux changements pour les multinationales du CAC 40, notamment au niveau des stratégies empruntées, des modes d’organisation et des relations avec les parties prenantes et la société.

À la prochaine…

Intéressante tribune dans La presse de mes amies Emmanuelle Létourneau et Rosalie Vendette touchant la RSE et la finance sociale : « L’épinglette d’Horacio Arruda, une source d’inspiration pour les entreprises et les financiers » (La presse, 3 mai 2020).

Extrait :

(…) Cela se matérialise par exemple, de la part des investisseurs, par un bilan carbone des entreprises (facteur E) ou un bilan social (facteur S) ou encore une évaluation de la gouvernance (facteur G) mise en place par l’entreprise, ou encore, de sa capacité de la mettre en place.

L’effort qui est fait pour tenir compte de critères ESG, souvent effectué pour une meilleure gestion des risques auxquels ces investissements peuvent être exposés, démontre qu’il est possible de le bonifier en y ajoutant les ODD, vus comme périphériques et faisant partie du même écosystème. En effet, les ODD nous proposent d’unir nos forces en visant des buts communs.

(…)

Responsabilité sociale des entreprises

Que ce soit à travers la prise en compte des facteurs ESG pour une gestion des risques ou une création de valeur ou que ce soit l’adoption de nouvelles orientations en lien avec un ou plusieurs ODD, il est toujours question de responsabilité sociale des entreprises.

Celle-ci appelle à modifier la façon dont les entreprises sont gouvernées et à donner un sens particulier à leurs actions. Tant les facteurs ESG que les ODD devront être pris en compte dans le processus décisionnel des directions d’entreprise et de leur conseil d’administration, qui agira comme gouvernail.

Dans un monde post-COVID-19, où la responsabilité sociale des entreprises est mise sous les projecteurs, il y a fort à espérer que ces exigences des investisseurs et des créanciers soient plus encore orientées vers le développement durable et ses objectifs.

Alors, entreprises, tenez-vous-le pour dit : votre contribution aux ODD et les impacts positifs et négatifs que vous avez sur eux seront de plus en plus scrutés à l’avenir !

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…

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…

Belle tribune de mon ami Yann Queinnec dans Les Échos.fr (6 mai 2020) : « La RSE à l’épreuve du Covid-19 ». En un mot : vigilance… il faut éviter la régression des entreprises en matière de RSE !

Extrait :

(…) Attention. Un autre son de cloche se fait déjà entendre. La crise est aussi propice à une offensive remettant en cause les quelques acquis de ces dernières années en matière de responsabilité sociétale des entreprises (RSE).

Le danger d’une régression est bien réel. Il traduit la trop faible prise au sérieux de la RSE au sein des états majors des plus grands Groupes. Comment faire en sorte au contraire que cette crise inédite devienne un accélérateur de la mutation vers une économie plus soutenable ?

Il s’agit de consolider les acquis et d’accélérer la mutation, massivement. C’est tout l’enjeu des prochaines semaines et prochains mois. La RSE doit trouver sa place au plus haut niveau des organigrammes et des agendas stratégiques de l’après. Il s’agit de capitaliser sur la solidarité redécouverte pour transformer la dynamique en impacts tangibles et satisfaire les attentes grandissantes de performances extra-financières exprimées par la société.

Pour ce faire, chaque entreprise doit s’approprier la culture de l’impact sociétal. Cette culture d’entreprise, portée par des valeurs de dialogue et de solidarité ne peut se limiter à trouver sa raison d’être sociétale, aussi séduisante et mobilisatrice soit-elle. Seule, une raison d’être n’est rien.

Les enjeux devant nous appellent à un alignement des agendas sur des objectifs d’impacts positifs partagés. Il s’agit donc de créer les conditions de la confiance avec des acteurs qui ont légitimement des doutes sur les intentions réelles, tant la RSE ne s’est bien souvent réduite qu’à un discours de façade.

Et cela commence naturellement par les équipes internes. Chaque collaborateur doit, non seulement être sensibilisé, mais convaincu de l’ambition d’impact positif de son entreprise et de son rôle pour l’atteindre.

Quant aux parties prenantes externes, l’entreprise va devoir apprendre à les intégrer toujours plus, dans ses processus de décision et dans ses actions. Jouer franc-jeu sur les enjeux et les contraintes sera le meilleur moyen de créer la confiance. Savoir faire émerger des objectifs partagés et mobiliser autour de soi, des ONG jusqu’aux compétiteurs, va devenir un savoir-faire à haute valeur ajoutée sociétale.

(…) Cette pandémie peut faire passer la RSE à l’âge adulte. La responsabilité sociétale et extra-financière devient le nouveau curseur éthique, guidant autant les modalités de recrutement et de rémunération, les budgets de R&D, l’adaptation de l’offre de produits et services, que les stratégies fiscales responsables.

À la prochaine…

Article sympathique à lire de Suren Gomtsian intitulé : « When Businesses Can Do Good: Lessons from the Coronavirus Crisis for Promoting Responsible Business Practices » (Oxford Business Law Blog).

Extrait :

Universal threats can unite opposing camps in a common effort. The new coronavirus has hit almost every country and has created a shared understanding that every effort to contribute, however small it may be, is needed to overcome the crisis. Many businesses, typically criticised for giving priority to profits and to the interests of shareholders and managers, are part of the common response to the virus.

(…)

It is very unlikely that the virus has suddenly changed the corporate world. Clearly, the motivations of businesses for doing good may differ. While some have a genuine sense about their role in fighting the virus and helping those in need, many others view the crisis as a well-calculated opportunity to amend their battered reputations as partners and employers and gain advantage over competitors once the pandemic is over. But regardless of the motivations, the reaction of the corporate world to the pandemic offers three lessons for the promotion of responsible business practices in normal times.

First, in the absence of legislative action, change in corporate behaviour happens when there is broad consensus in society that collective action in response to a threat is an urgent priority. It is not poor ethics or morals that hold businesses back from working together with other parts of society, but disagreements about the scale and urgency of the problem. The collective response to coronavirus is the result of a broadly shared agreement on what companies are expected to do in the crisis that has emerged in almost every affected nation. Remarkably, companies are behaving differently even in the absence of legal reforms – laws on corporate purpose and directors’ duties are the same today as they were at the outset of the crisis.

Company founders and managers are a diverse group, and so are their preferences. Some may have serious concerns about global challenges facing humanity, such as inequality—whether of income, gender, race, or opportunities—or climate risks. But even these businesses may struggle in behaving responsibly because of concerns about becoming uncompetitive against less enlightened businesses. The classic collective action problem forces would-be responsible businesses to make the rational decision of ignoring inequality and environmental problems.

Where market failures like this are strong, the usual response is government intervention, for example, through the adoption of stricter employment protections or environmental standards. The reaction to the virus shows the power of a decentralized solution to the problem through collective social backlash. By increasing the costs of ignorant behaviour, broad society consensus promotes responsible business practices across markets and nations.

Second, businesses need clear guidelines as to what practical steps they are expected to take to meet the common goal. Governments have been clear about their expectations from businesses during the COVID-19 crisis by recommendations to preserve employment, cut dividends and share buybacks, and lower rents by property owners. Similarly, society in general has been sending clear signals about the expected behaviour by approving some actions taken by companies and showing discontent over undesired conduct in the form of widespread backlash.

For example, when Johnson & Johnson, a medical company, announced plans to invest US $1bn in developing a COVID-19 vaccine, the company’s shares jumped despite the not-for-profit nature of the project. By contrast, the decision by Sports Direct to keep shops open as essential or the decision by Adidas to skip rental payments on its stores led to public outcry and calls to boycott products in tabloid and social media. Similarly, the reluctance by the UK’s largest banks and German carmakers to cut dividends raised many eyebrows. Not only were some of these companies forced to apologize and reverse course, but their reputations were damaged too. Widely shared public reaction can thus send a clear message to all other businesses what to do and how not to behave.

Third, developing consensus over global challenges requires international cooperation. The exceptional scale of the current crisis coupled with the fear that governments responding to the crisis differently to others will face fierce questions explains why, even in the absence of coordination, all nations individually have acted similarly. But countries are likely to be affected differently, at least in the short run, on many other important matters. For example, the degree of underlying inequality varies across countries and some countries experience more acute climate-related risks, like forest fires or rising sea levels, than other nations. This means that atomistic development of consensus through peer pressure, unlike in the case of COVID-19, is highly unlikely. Local action, meanwhile, cannot offer meaningful solutions because markets are still global and responsible governments and businesses will not be able to compete if others do not act similarly.

To sum up, if we want businesses to act responsibly, we need to deliver a clear message by developing consensus over global challenges and communicating it clearly to businesses as one shared global voice. We also need to set out what practical steps businesses need to take to achieve the common goal – whether through government nudges or endorsements in social and news media. Where threats affect nations differently, this can be achieved only through cooperation on a global scale. Given the rise of national sovereign interests and national governments, we are facing a huge task in developing broad consensus on matters that are important. The arrival of responsible capitalism may thus take time. For now, until this consensus is formed, blame us and our elected governments, not businesses, for the failures of capitalism.

À la prochaine…