Nouvelles diverses | Page 6

Dans Le Devoir (30 janvier 2017), Germain Belzile partage sur réflexion qui intéresse les lectrices et les lecteurs du blogue : « Devrait-on limiter la recherche du profit des entreprises? ». L’auteur y expose les notions de RSE et de durabilité en mettant en lumières leurs implications sur la poursuite de lucrativité des entreprises.

La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise et la durabilité sont des concepts importants. Interprétés trop largement, ils peuvent causer un tort grave à notre économie. S’ils sont bien compris, ils complètent la recherche du profit et peuvent aider les entreprises et l’ensemble de la société à atteindre un objectif que nous partageons tous : une vie meilleure, aujourd’hui et dans les années à venir.

Pour rappel, j’avais exprimé sur le blogue Contact de l’Université Laval, l’idée que la recherche du profit à tout prix pour les entreprises est une conception passéiste des choses que le droit a parfaitement compris : « Haro sur l’irresponsabilité des entreprises » (10 juin 2015).

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Option finance du 6 février 2017 nous apprend que « Le rapport intégré perce dans les entreprises ». Une belle nouvelle pour la RSE tant ce rapport donne une vision globale des choses !

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Le blogue newsfinance expose la récente position prise par le gérant de l’énorme fonds Blackrock : « Quand le pape de la finance s’adresse aux grands patrons » (newsfinance.fr, 24 janvier 2017). Une position riche d’enseignement !

Si Larry Fink « engage » publiquement les grandes sociétés dont Blackrock est un actionnaire parfois significatif, ce n’est donc pas pour leur demander de pressurer plus leurs salariés pour donner plus de jus aux actionnaires, mais plutôt pour les appeler à la responsabilité et à une stratégie de long-terme. Et si les financiers sont souvent accusés de court-termisme, Larry Fink avance un contre-argument intéressant.  « Comme les actifs de nos clients sont souvent investis dans des produits indexés à des indices – et que nous ne pouvons pas vendre ces titres tant qu’ils demeurent dans l’indice – nos clients sont assurément des investisseurs de long terme », écrit-il. Mais il avertit aussi les chefs d’entreprise qu’il ne faut pas confondre investissement de long terme et patience infinie ! Au besoin, et faute d’un dialogue constructif, Blackrock peut ainsi voter son droit de vote pour sanctionner un management déficient ou des rémunérations managériales « non alignées » avec les intérêts des actionnaires.

(…) Mais il est aussi intéressant de voir l’homme le plus puissant de la gestion d’actifs mondiale recommander aux grands patrons de s’intéresser de plus près aux facteurs ESG (environnement, social, gouvernance) dans leurs décisions, leur indiquant notamment de veiller au bien-être de leurs salariés. « Les événements de l’année passée ne font que démontrer de manière renforcée combien le bien-être des employés d’une entreprise est critique pour son succès à long terme », écrit Larry Fink. Un point de vue que ne contrediront pas les gérants de Sycomore, un acteur de la gestion d’actifs sans doute mille fois plus petit que Blackrock, mais convaincu de ce sujet au point d’avoir lancé un fonds baptisé « Happy @ Work », sélectionnant les sociétés dans lesquelles il investi sur ce critère précis.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, merci à Leo Strine de rappeler cette évidence : les CA doivent se préoccuper des parties prenantes ! Dans son article « Corporate Power is Corporate Purpose I: Evidence from My Hometown », Leo Strine s’appuie sur une analyse historique ô combien intéressante… À lire de toute urgence

Le message est clair (j’ai extrait deux phrases qui me semblent ne prêter guère le flanc à la critique) :

• This article is the first in a series considering a rather tired argument in corporate governance circles, that corporate laws that give only rights to stockholders somehow implicitly empower directors to regard other constituencies as equal ends in governance.
• DuPont’s board knew that only one corporate constituency — the stockholders — called the shots and that they were expected to make their end investors’ best interests, even if that meant hurting other constituencies. The DuPont saga isn’t a story about bad people, but a reminder to those with genuine concern for non-shareholder constituencies to face the truth and support changes in the power dynamics affecting corporate governance that make due regard for non-shareholder constituencies a required obligation for the conduct of business.

Using recent events in the corporate history of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company—more commonly referred to today as DuPont—as a case study, this article makes the point that the board of directors is elected by only one constituency—stockholders—and that core power structure translates into corporate purpose. DuPont is an American icon, creator of household names like Nylon and Mylar, which prided itself on its core values, which included commitments to the safety and health of the communities in which DuPont operated and to treat its employees with dignity and respect. But when an activist investor came, DuPont reacted by preemptively downsizing—cutting jobs, and spinning off assets. After winning the proxy fight, DuPont failed to meet the aggressive earnings it used in its campaign. More job cuts came, the CEO was replaced with a member of her proxy fight slate, and DuPont soon embraced a merger consistent with the activists’ goals. At the same time, DuPont demanded tax and other incentives from the affected community it had asked to rally around it in the proxy fight. It did all this even though at no time was there a threat of a lawsuit or judicial intervention from unhappy shareholders. The DuPont saga illustrates how power dictates purpose in our corporate governance system. DuPont’s board knew that only one corporate constituency—the stockholders—called the shots and that they were expected to make their end investors’ best interests, even if that meant hurting other constituencies. The DuPont saga isn’t a story about bad people, but a reminder to those with genuine concern for non-shareholder constituencies to face the truth and support changes in the power dynamics affecting corporate governance that make due regard for non-shareholder constituencies a required obligation for the conduct of business.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Martin Lipton vient de publier un bel article « Corporate Governance: The New Paradigm » le 11 janvier 2017 sur le Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation. Une magnifique synthèse qui met en lumière la nouvelle gouvernance d’entreprise qui s’en vient.

In essence, the New Paradigm recalibrates the relationship between public corporations and their major institutional investors and conceives of corporate governance as a collaboration among corporations, shareholders and other stakeholders working together to achieve long-term value and resist short-termism. In this framework, if a corporation, its board of directors and its CEO and management team are diligently pursuing well-conceived strategies that were developed with the participation of independent, competent and engaged directors, and its operations are in the hands of competent executives, investors will support the corporation and refuse to support short-term financial activists seeking to force short-term value enhancements without regard to long-term value implications. As part of their stewardship role, institutional investors will work to understand corporations’ strategies and operations and engage with them to provide corporations with opportunities to understand the investors’ opinions and to adjust strategies and operations in order to receive the investors’ support.

Qu’implique ces nouvelles orientations de la gouvernance d’entreprise ? Martin Lipton les met en lumière magnifiquement :

For corporations, the New Paradigm will:

• alleviate pressures to maximize profits and equity share value in the short term at the expense of the long term;
• encourage corporations to pursue thoughtful strategies for maximizing profits and equity share value in the long term;
• encourage corporations to incorporate relevant sustainability, ESG (environmental, social and governance) and CSR (corporate social responsibility) considerations in developing their long-term strategies and operations planning;
• encourage corporations to be transparent in their financial reporting; and
• encourage a corporation to periodically review governance and thoughtfully consider the principles promulgated or endorsed by its major investors.

For investors, the New Paradigm will:

• increase the willingness to withstand cyclical headwinds and short-term market fluctuations in the pursuit of long-term value;
• minimize reliance on short-term financial performance metrics and promote a more holistic understanding of corporations’ businesses;
• encourage investors to consistently support the pursuit of well-designed long-term strategies by the corporations in which they invest;
• discourage investors from supporting short-term financial activists that advocate only short-term profit and value maximization;
• discourage investors from outsourcing proxy voting decisions to proxy advisory firms or otherwise basing such decisions on “check-the-box” principles, scores or formulas;
• not discourage investors from entertaining proposals by responsible activist shareholders for support in improving the strategy or operations of under-performing corporations; and
• encourage investors to address relevant sustainability, ESG and CSR matters. At the interface between corporations and investors, the New Paradigm will:
• encourage investors to communicate directly their preferences, expectations and policies to corporations;
• encourage corporations to provide meaningful communications about strategy, long-term objectives and governance, and encourage investors to actively listen to corporations and review these communications;
• encourage corporations to establish and maintain meaningful, direct long-term relationships with significant investors in corporations and encourage those investors to have the appropriate policies, personnel and procedures for meaningful reciprocity in the relationship; and
• where corporations are pursuing subpar strategies that are unlikely to bring long-term success, encourage investors to use behind-the-scenes, direct engagement with those corporations as a first line of action.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, c’est un beau papier que proposé sur SSRN et au titre accrocheur « Socially Responsible Firms » (Ferrell, Allen and Liang, Hao and Renneboog, Luc, Socially Responsible Firms (August 2016). European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) – Finance Working Paper No. 432/2014). Principale enseignement de cette étude : la problématique de la responsabilité sociétale ne serait pas antinomique avec la primauté de la valeur actionnariale.

The desirability for corporations to engage in socially responsible behavior has long been hotly debated among economists, lawyers, and business experts. Back in the 1930s, two American lawyers, Adolf A. Berle, Jr., and E. Merrick Dodd, Jr., had a famous public debate addressing the question: to whom are corporations accountable? Berle argued that the management of a corporation should be held accountable only to shareholders for their actions, and Dodd argued that corporations were accountable to both the society in which they operated and their shareholders. The lasting interest in this debate reflects the fact that the issues it raises touch on the basic role and function of corporations in a capitalist society.

(…) In our paper, ‘Socially Responsible Firms’, we take a comprehensive look at the CSR agency and good governance views around the globe. By means of a rich and partly proprietary CSR data set with global coverage across a large number of countries and composed of thousands of the largest companies, we test these two views by examining whether traditional corporate finance proxies for firm agency problems, such as capital spending cash flows, managerial compensation arrangements, ownership structures, and country-level investor protection laws, account for firms’ CSR activities. While other studies using a within-country quasi-experimental approach focus on the marginal effect of variation in agency problems, our data and empirical setting enable us to examine its average effect. Based on this comprehensive analysis, we fail to find evidence that CSR conduct in general is a function of firm agency problems. Instead, consistent with the good governance view, well-governed firms, as represented by lower cash hoarding and capital spending, higher payout and leverage ratio, and stronger pay-for-performance, are more likely to be socially responsible and have higher CSR ratings. In addition, CSR is higher in countries with better legal protection of shareholder rights and in firms with smaller excess voting power held by controlling shareholders. Moreover, a higher CSR rating moderates the negative association between a firm’s managerial entrenchment and value. All these findings lend support to the good governance view and suggest that CSR in general is not inconsistent with shareholder wealth maximization.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian