Gouvernance | Page 38

La question est assurément délicate et amène à s’interroger sur le rôle de l’État dans l’économie et aussi comme investisseur dans les entreprises. La réponse est délicate à apporter même si on ne peut être mal à l’aise que cette aide soit octroyée dans le même temps que l’annonce de 2500 emplois supprimés (ici).

Pour remettre la question en perspective, je vous renvoie à cette entrevue de Radio-Canada de Mme Dostaler réalisée par M. Gérard Fillon : https://ici.radio-canada.ca/tele/rdi-economie/site/segments/reportage/179183/rdi-economie-entrevue-avec-isabelle-dostaler

Résumé :

Québec pourrait aider l’entreprise, mais pas de la même façon que dans le dossier de la CSeries.Explications avec Isabelle Dostaler de l’Université Memorial de Terre-Neuve.

À la prochaine…

Le MÉDAC produit un intéressant billet sur l’état de la baisse de rémunération de la haute direction dans le contexte de la COVID-19 : « Réduire le salaire d’un PDG et accroître sa rémunération en même temps » (Dominique Lemoine, 5 juin 2020).

Extrait :

Des chefs de direction se targuent d’avoir renoncé à une partie de leur salaire dans le contexte de la pandémie, mais leur conseil d’administration pourrait modifier leur régime de rémunération globale pour préserver leur train de vie.

Selon l’agence de presse Associated Press (AP), dans le contexte du dévoilement d’une étude Equilar/AP au sujet de la rémunération de 329 chefs de la direction d’entreprises inscrites à l’indice boursier S&P 500, des investisseurs et actionnaires restent sur leurs gardes, car des CA considèrent revoir les objectifs de performance de leur chef de direction, afin de les rendre plus faciles à atteindre dans le contexte actuel, donc de rendre plus accessibles les incitatifs financiers liés à la performance.

De plus, par exemple, des CA pourraient aussi décider d’octroyer de plus gros blocs d’actions à leur chef de la direction, de manière à « compenser les chutes des valeurs boursières plus tôt cette année, comme plusieurs entreprises avaient fait après la crise financière de 2008 ».

Dans les deux cas, « le risque est que s’il y a un fort rebond du marché, cela pourrait mener à une manne financière », selon la directrice générale adjointe du Council of Institutional Investors, Amy Borrus, citée par l’AP, d’autant plus que « le marché a déjà récupéré plus de la moitié de ses pertes », ajoute l’AP.

De son côté, la firme de gestion d’actifs Vanguard considère que les cibles de performance ne devraient pas être rendues plus faciles à atteindre, parce que les formes de rémunération non garanties devraient demeurer non garanties.

Faire bonne figure

Selon l’AP, la rémunération globale 2020 des chefs de direction sera examinée à la loupe en 2021, par exemple aux assemblées annuelles, par les actionnaires, les investisseurs potentiels et les parties intéressées, comme le public.

« Vous ne pouvez pas être l’organisation qui a mis à pied des employés […] et dont le chef de direction a néanmoins reçu des hausses de salaire et de bonis », selon une associée du cabinet-conseil Compensation Advisory Partners, Melissa Burek, elle aussi citée par l’AP.

Selon Vanguard, les CA devraient considérer la dimension sociale de leurs décisions en matière de rémunération des hauts dirigeants, la manière dont ces décisions seront perçues par le public, ainsi les risques réputationnels pour l’organisation liés à l’octroi au mauvais moment de rémunérations déconnectées de la réalité et du vécu des parties intéressées, comme les employés et la communauté.

À la prochaine…

En voilà une nouvelle ! La province de Colombie-Britannique vient de faire place à une Benefit Corporation. Certaines modifications apportées à la Business Corporations Act de la Colombie-Britannique (la « BCBCA ») qui vont entrer en vigueur le 30 juin 2020 permettent la création d’un nouveau sous-type de société, la « société d’intérêt social » (la benefit company). La Colombie-Britannique est le premier territoire canadien à adopter ce concept qui n’est pourtant pas nouveau aux États-Unis. Pas sûr que ce choix soit heureux dans la mesure où la 3C existait déjà et qu’elle se révèle sans doute plus porteuse pour la RSE…

Pour en savoir plus : « Une première au Canada : les sociétés d’« intérêt social » arrivent en Colombie-Britannique » (Stikeman Elliott, 5 juin 2020)

Extrait :

The major distinctions between a B.C. benefit company and other B.C. companies are as follows:

• Notice of articles: The benefit company’s notice of articles will contain the following statement (the “benefit statement”):

This company is a benefit company and, as such, is committed to conducting its business in a responsible and sustainable manner and promoting one or more public benefits.

• Articles: The benefit company’s articles must include a provision that specifies the public benefits to be promoted (“benefit provision”). “Public benefit” refers to something that has a positive effect that benefits (i) a class of persons other than shareholders of the company in their capacity as shareholders, or a class of communities or organizations, or (ii) the environment. The positive effect can be:
  • Artistic
  • Charitable
  • Cultural
  • Economic
  • Educational
  • Environmental
  • Literary
  • Medical
  • Religious
  • Scientific
  • Technological

• Alterations: Any decision to adopt or eliminate the benefit statement (i.e. to alter the company’s status as a benefit company) must be approved by a special resolution of the voting shareholders. Both voting and non-voting shareholders of the benefit company are entitled to dissent rights with respect to such a change or to a change in the benefit provision.
• Benefit report: Each year, the benefit company must prepare, provide to its shareholders and post on its website (if it has one) a report (“benefit report”) that assesses the company’s performance in carrying out the commitments set out in the company’s benefit provision compared to a third-party standard. The report needs to include information about the process and rationale for selecting or changing the relevant third-party standard. Regulations may be enacted that provide more details about the third-party standard and the contents of the benefit report.
• Penalties relating to the benefit report: It will be an offence if the directors of the benefit company do not prepare and post the benefit report as required by the BCBCA and the regulations. There is a potential fine of up to $2,000 for individuals or $5,000 for persons other than individuals.
• Augmented fiduciary duty: The directors and officers of a benefit company will be required to act honestly and in good faith with a view to conducting the business in a responsible and sustainable manner and promoting the public benefits that the company has identified in its benefit provision. They must balance that public benefits duty against their duties to the company. (There is currently no guidance with respect to achieving this balance.) However, the amendments state that the public benefits duty does not create a duty on the part of directors or officers to persons who are affected by the company’s conduct or who would be personally benefitted by it.
• Enforcement and remedies where duty breached: Several significant provisions in the amendments relate to enforcement and remedies:
  • Shareholders are the only persons who are able to bring an action against a BCBCA benefit company’s directors and officers over an alleged violation of their duty relating to public benefits;
  • Only shareholders that, in the aggregate, hold at least 2% of the company’s issued shares may bring such an action (in the case of a public company, a $2 million shareholding, in the aggregate, will also suffice); and
  • The court may not order monetary damages in relation to a breach of that duty. Other remedies, such as removal or a direction to comply, would still be available.

À la prochaine…

Pour M. Ben Aamar et Mme Martinez, il faut que les entreprises doivent dépasser le « greenwashing » pour informer les investisseurs sur la résilience de leur modèle économique aux chocs environnementaux. Je vous invite à lire leur tribune : « Améliorer l’information environnementale des investisseurs doit devenir une priorité «  (Le Monde, 5 juin 2020).

Extrait :

La pandémie actuelle peut aboutir à une prise de conscience collective et à un renforcement de la lutte contre les causes du dérèglement climatique, ou bien, au contraire, à une mise entre parenthèses des initiatives en ce sens, car l’attention ainsi que toutes les ressources financières seront consacrées à des mesures de relance économique. La cause climatique passerait alors au second plan face à l’urgence, avec, à terme, des conséquences désastreuses.

Le rôle des gouvernants est majeur. Mais pour orienter correctement les flux financiers, publics comme privés, améliorer l’information environnementale des investisseurs doit également devenir une priorité. Le sujet est peu connu du grand public car d’apparence technique. Pourtant, les enjeux sont considérables.

À la prochaine…

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, petite lecture tirée du Oxford Business Law Blog : « Corporate Social Responsibility in the Times of Covid » de Akshaya Kamalnath (12 mai 2020).

Extrait :

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a concept that notoriously evades definition. Some have said that companies should act in socially responsible ways in their daily operations while charitable donations have historically been brought under this umbrella. The former understanding of CSR is often preferred because simply making charitable donations while doing business in an irresponsible manner causing harm to various stakeholders is clearly undesirable.

India’s company law has a CSR provision requiring companies to donate 2% of their profits from the preceding three years on activities designated by the government. (You can read a detailed analysis of the law in an article by Sandeep Gopalan and me here.) One criticism of such an understanding of CSR is that the meaning restricts itself to charitable donations without venturing into how companies conduct their day to day business.

The coronavirus has given us an unpleasant jolt with which to test if companies are happy to simply comply with the CSR provision and do nothing else to accommodate various stakeholders that are suffering in this crisis. Yet many big businesses in India (Bajaj Auto, Tata Sons, Vedanta Group) promised not to cut salaries of staff during the pandemic. Instead, some companies suggested that they were considering a pay cut for CEOs and other members of the promoter group (the controlling shareholder group in India, typically a family).

(…) When viewed from the perspective of the epidemic, charitable contribution seems like a perfectly valid form of CSR. This is not only because the company is addressing an urgent need at the moment but also because the initiatives have come from individual companies rather than as a response to a forced government mandate of requiring a certain amount of expenditure on CSR activities. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) issued an order stating that companies’ responses to the covid crisis could be classified as CSR. The companies Act only allows spending on designated categories to be classified as CSR. Since one of the designated categories is ‘combating human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, malaria and other diseases’, the order from the MCA was not too surprising. Obviously, India’s rigid definition of CSR means that innovative responses from companies that offered their resorts to be used as temporary care facilities will not be considered CSR.

The lesson to take beyond the pandemic is for the Indian government to resist the urge to intervene in how companies comply with the CSR provision in the law. Allowing companies to be creative and using their CSR activities to gain reputational capital is not a bad idea. In fact, this should be further encouraged by letting companies disclose their social activities along with the CSR disclosures (relating to the required spending) required by the law.

À la prochaine…

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…